ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Waste Review

Mary Glindon: What recent representations she has received from local authorities on her Department’s waste review. [Official Report, 23 May 2011, Vol. 528, c. 5-6MC.]

Caroline Spelman: My ministerial colleagues and I have met a wide range of local authority representatives to discuss our review of waste policy in England. Eighty local authorities, and a range of partnership groups, responded to our call for evidence and many have participated in subsequent discussions with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials, emphasising the diversity of local circumstances.

Mary Glindon: Can the Secretary of State tell me what DEFRA is doing to help local authorities to crack down on persistent fly-tippers in rural and urban areas?

Caroline Spelman: Responsibility for dealing with fly-tipping is also a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that, over time, the fines have been increased. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 makes provision for penalties for fly-tippers, and I want to make it perfectly clear from DEFRA’s perspective that it is a practice that we abhor, and that we seek to catch and prosecute those who perpetrate it.

Gary Streeter: Given that the South West Devon Waste Partnership has decided that Plymouth is the right place for its energy-from-waste facility, will the Secretary of State please try to persuade Devon county council, in its forthcoming consideration of an application for a commercial waste incinerator in south Devon, that we certainly do not need two incinerators so close to each other in the area? [ Interruption. ]

Caroline Spelman: Whatever I said has resulted in a very rapid departure by the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon).
	The waste review will look at waste in the round. We recognise the difficulties that incineration can cause locally, which is why we strongly support these decisions being made at local level.

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise; this is nothing to do with the Secretary of State. A Member must not leave the Chamber before his or her question has been concluded, whatever other pressures there might be.

Jamie Reed: Recycling under the last Labour Government increased threefold, but this Government’s continued delays over the waste review have deprived British business of the certainty that it needs if it is to use resources in a smarter way and improve its reuse and recycling of materials. This is damaging for the economy and for the environment. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the waste review will enable business to make up the ground lost as a result of Government delay? Can she also guarantee that it will provide the right regulatory framework to enable businesses to invest in these areas?

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman wrongly credits his party with being at the centre of the improvement in recycling rates. The fact is that local authorities have achieved this, and the majority of them are Conservative controlled to boot. Perhaps we can also nail this myth about delay. Our business plan makes it clear that the waste review, which was launched in June last year, will be published in June this year. This is not a question of delay. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait just a short while to see the importance that the Government attach to undertaking a thorough review of waste, which includes picking up some of the mess that the previous Government left behind.

Allotments

Bridget Phillipson: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on allotments.

Dave Watts: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on allotments.

James Paice: This Government strongly support the need for more growing spaces to be made available for people to grow their own fruit and vegetables. Assertions that we would scrap the duty placed on local authorities to provide plots for growing food to persons resident in the area are entirely false. DEFRA officials and I are working with the Department for Communities and Local Government to develop further initiatives to release land that could be used for allotment sites.

Bridget Phillipson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Four thousand people in my area currently have an allotment or are on a waiting list for one. Can he
	reassure me that he will not support any measure that would scrap legal protection for allotments, and that he will bring all possible pressure to bear on his colleagues in the DCLG?

James Paice: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that my colleagues in the DCLG have already made public statements to make it clear that there are no plans to weaken the protection for allotments.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Dave Watts. He is not here. We move on to Question 3.

British Food Industry

Robert Halfon: What steps she is taking to support the British food industry.

James Paice: The Government take the British food industry extremely seriously. We have established the industry-led taskforce on farming regulation; we have also invested £13.6 million in collaborative research and agreed an action plan to increase fruit and vegetable production; and we will publish the groceries code adjudicator Bill shortly. Furthermore, on 26 January I wrote to all Departments setting out the Government’s commitment that, subject to no overall increase in costs, they will source only food that meets British or equivalent standards of production.

Robert Halfon: Nazeing village, in my constituency, is a UK centre for greenhouse farming, and that is especially true of the farm of Mr Franco Pullara. He is hoping to build a new plant to produce biogas, which will provide him with renewable heat and power, but the rules are a minefield. What further assistance can the Minister provide to support such farming projects, and will he meet Mr Pullara to discuss it?

James Paice: I am very much aware of a number of growers in my hon. Friend’s constituency who are pre-eminent in glasshouse production, and I would be very happy to meet this particular constituent. My hon. Friend is aware that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is undertaking a review of the feed-in tariffs for biogas production. Obviously we will have to await the outcome of that, but I hope that we can remove any other barriers to enable his constituent’s development to take place.

William Bain: The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation forecast last month that global food production will have to rise by 70% by 2050, and that goes alongside the twin challenges for government of reducing agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions and ending food waste, which costs British families an estimated £5 billion a year. Why then, four months after the publication of the foresight report, have the Government produced no plan to increase sustainable food production? Was the president of the National Farmers Union not right to indicate that a Department without a plan for food means a Government without a grip on the vital issue of food security?

James Paice: That is a bit rich, given that the Labour Government spent 13 years running down our agricultural industry so that we now have to import to cover half
	our needs—that is the result of their policies. Of course we are developing our own proposals. The foresight report was produced under this Government and we stand by it. It is a very comprehensive report and we will, of course, be responding to it with a series of proposals to put British agriculture back where it belongs—back on its feet.

British Food Exports

Sajid Javid: What steps she is taking to support British food exports.

James Paice: DEFRA leads on a number of initiatives to support British food exports, such as working with industry to develop export certification schemes for non-EU markets. A recent success has been certifying dairy products for export to India. We are working with the food industry, and across government, to maximise the growth potential through overseas trade. That commitment is clear in the recently published UK trade and industry strategy.

Sajid Javid: I thank the Minister for his answer. Two of my constituents run a very successful pet food company, First Class Foods Ltd. They are trying to tap into international demand, but they face a significant obstacle in China because, surprisingly, we do not have the relevant export licence. Will he help to bring good, wholesome, tasty British pet food to Chinese cats and dogs by addressing this issue?

James Paice: I shall resist all the obvious temptations in that question. I am aware of First Class Foods in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The difficulties of entering the Chinese market are not confined to pet food; it took us three years to make the necessary import arrangements in respect of breeding pigs. However, my officials are working with the Chinese Government and, in particular, their General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine to find a way forward so that his company can export good quality pet food to China.

Fish Discards

David Hanson: What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on fish discards.

Richard Benyon: Since the ministerial meeting I attended in Brussels on 1 March, discussions have progressed at official level. Officials attended an event on 3 May with other member states, industry representatives and other interested parties, where the discussion about a discard ban continued. I consider that any move towards a discard ban must be backed up by genuinely effective, enforceable and affordable measures, driving more selective behaviour towards reducing what is caught in the first place.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. He will certainly have my support and good wishes, and those of my Front-Bench team, in making progress on that particular action. When he does so,
	will he also raise with the European Union and with John West Foods Ltd that company’s performance on tuna discards and tuna fishing generally? Some 49,000 people have signed a Greenpeace petition calling for improvements in that performance, and John West remains the only retailer and producer not to have taken action in the United Kingdom.

Richard Benyon: I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is worth applauding companies such as Princes that have moved over to line-caught tuna only. Many other multiples and supermarkets now sell only tuna that has been caught by sustainable means from sustainable stocks. I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Minister on the negotiations about discards, which is a wholly unacceptable practice. The Commission seems to be moving towards a quota for 15 years. Will he spare a thought for the Coble fishermen in Filey who have no quota, want to fish cod at the moment, but are unable to do so under the current regime?

Richard Benyon: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We have to work off track records and historical fishing effort. I understand the many concerns of fishermen in the non-quota areas. They want to be part of a reformed policy and I will certainly consult my hon. Friend and Members of all parties to make sure that we take forward a long-term policy that has sustainability at its heart.

Eilidh Whiteford: How will the Minister assess the success of the catch quota trials that have been going on in Scotland and England? Does he foresee an extension of that effort to tackle discards?

Richard Benyon: When I was in opposition, I visited the hon. Lady’s constituency and talked to fishermen who were very concerned about having cameras on their boats as part of this scheme. Those concerns have now, by and large, dissipated and fishermen across the country are joining similar schemes. We have signed a declaration with France, Germany and Denmark, saying that catch quotas should be at the heart of a reformed common fisheries policy. That is really good news. I applaud the fishermen in the hon. Lady’s constituency and elsewhere; there will be no cod discarded from boats fishing from her constituency in the catch quota scheme this year.

Andrew George: Is the Minister aware that the 200 fishermen in the Cornish mackerel handliners association have decided not to continue their certification with the Marine Stewardship Council because they judged that the costs clearly outweighed the benefits, particularly bearing in mind that the MSC appears to have become more business-led and supermarket-driven in its standards, allowing some high-impact trawler-based methods to achieve certification?

Richard Benyon: Marine Stewardship Council accreditation is a highly respected brand globally, and must remain so. We must do all we can to work with it
	to ensure that it does remain so. I was dismayed to hear recently about the decision of the handline fishermen in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and I want all fishermen to try to get into accredited schemes like this one, which shows that they are not only fishing sustainably but accessing the market at a premium price. We want to make every effort to sustain the MRC accredited scheme.

Fishermen

Sheryll Murray: What steps she is taking to support fishermen.

Richard Benyon: Before I answer the question, I want to say that all Members are in awe of the hon. Lady’s courage in standing up for her constituents and the industry she loves so soon after the tragic loss of her husband
	Fishermen are facing significant challenges, particularly in the English under-10 metre fleet. Forthcoming domestic and European reforms offer the opportunity fundamentally to change things and put the industry on a sustainable footing in the longer term. In the meantime, along with financial support available through the European Fisheries Fund, the Marine Management Organisation is working with industry effectively to manage the current system, to secure additional quota through swaps and to keep fisheries open as long as possible.

Sheryll Murray: I thank the Minister for those kind words.
	I have a special interest in this subject as a custodian of an under-10 metre trawler. The impact assessment accompanying the consultation on the reform of fisheries management arrangements in England has not considered key sensitive assumptions. Will my hon. Friend test the sensitivities and risks for the impact of fixed quota allocations on under-10 metre vessels that, for various reasons, move between ports located in different ICES—International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—areas. Will he also assess the impact of fluctuations in fuel prices?

Richard Benyon: I think the law of unintended consequences is more prevalent in fisheries management than in anything else I have encountered. I want to make sure that our reforms for the under-10 metre sector work. That is why we developed a consultation, building on the sustainable access to inshore fisheries that was started by the last Government. I hope that we can put inshore fisheries on a sustainable footing. I will look at anything that stands in its way, so I will consult officials on what my hon. Friend has said and get back to her.

Tom Greatrex: I am sure that the Minister will know of reports this morning about of the Commission’s proposals which are to be issued in July, referring to longer quota periods. I hope that he will use his good offices in the negotiations to ensure that no EU-wide conditions are applied that do not take account of local conditions and practices. It is important for the sustainability of fisheries throughout UK waters for local practices not to be disregarded.

Richard Benyon: I respect the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of the issue. He is absolutely right. One of our problems in British waters is that we have, by and large, a very mixed fishery, and the top-down system management has not taken that into account. We are pushing for some form of at least sea-based and perhaps more local control and management of our fisheries. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at the heart of a reformed fisheries policy is the need for local factors to be allowed to play a role, and that many of them should be controlled by member states or more locally to ensure that we have the right and most sustainable policies.

Access to Ministers

John Glen: What steps she is taking to increase the level of access to Ministers and engagement with departmental decision making for farming and rural communities.

Graham Evans: What steps she is taking to increase the level of access to Ministers and engagement with departmental decision making for farming and rural communities.

Caroline Spelman: Our new rural communities policy unit is building links with a wide range of organisations representing and supporting rural communities. We are also encouraging the development of a new rural and farming network enabling people from different parts of the country to advise Ministers directly on farming, food and rural issues.

John Glen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply.
	One of the challenges facing rural communities is the sense of isolation that results from poor access to broadband and voice calls. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that Ministers address the problem of rural communities’ feeling of apartness from government in regard to lack of access to online means of communication?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend is right to raise this point. Those living in rural areas with no access to broadband are at a digital disadvantage, which is why the coalition Government have committed £530 million to assisting the roll-out of superfast broadband to those areas. That is particularly important to farmers, who are expected to file their forms on line, but it is also important to children, who are nowadays expected to file their homework on line.

Graham Evans: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most damaging characteristics of the last Government was their apparent distance from issues affecting people living in rural communities such as mine? Can she reassure my constituents that people living in the countryside will be given every opportunity to ensure that their voices are heard directly when it comes to rural policy making?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has given the Conservatives strong backing from 2009 onwards on the need to put the rural heart of the
	country back at the centre of government. May I encourage him, our hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and all other Members present to persuade their constituents to engage with the new rural and farming network? It will provide an opportunity for people to have direct access to Ministers, and I hope that every Member will take advantage of that.

Kerry McCarthy: I welcome the Department’s effort to engage with rural communities, which is obviously important in the south-west, but is the Secretary of State aware of the growing fear that the Department is beginning to represent the interests of food producers and farmers at the expense of those of food consumers? What steps is she taking to ensure that consumers are involved in departmental decision making as well?

Caroline Spelman: I do not recognise that distorted view of what the Department does. If I were to list just a few of our achievements over the last 12 months, they would point strongly to the breadth of our remit . For instance, I helped to secure agreement on biodiversity in Nagoya, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), helped to secure the ban on illegal timber logging and ensure that the ban on commercial whaling was retained, and we will shortly produce a natural environment White Paper, the first for 20 years. That should give a strong assurance to all Members and everyone we know who cares deeply about the protection of the environment.

Forests and Woodlands

Mark Pawsey: What steps her Department is taking to encourage greater community involvement in the running of local forests and woodland.

Caroline Spelman: I recently had the privilege of planting a tree with the Friends of Kingfisher Country Park, the Tree Council, Keep Britain Tidy, BTCV and local tree wardens to mark the milestone of 100,000 trees planted as part of our big tree plant. Since the launch in December, we have helped local communities and civil society partners across the country to plant trees where they live and work.

Mark Pawsey: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. In January 2000, ownership of Brandon wood in my constituency passed from the Forestry Commission to the Friends of Brandon Wood and became the first community woodland in England. Since then, volunteers have worked hard to provide a network of footpaths for all-weather and all-ability walking throughout the woods, and local schools have been involved. Will the Minister ensure that the Independent Panel on Forestry fully considers the benefits that can arise from local ownership of woodlands such as that of Brandon wood?

Caroline Spelman: I am sure Members know this, but I should perhaps point out that my hon. Friend has a degree in estate management, and his constituency is therefore very blessed given its appetite for engagement in community forestry. Brandon wood is one of the best
	examples of community forestry, and I suggest that my hon. Friend should pass it directly to the IPF, because that panel is open to all members of the public, and part of its work will involve going around the country. He has an excellent opportunity to commend this example to the panel.

Barry Gardiner: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways of getting local people further involved in woodland management would be by progressing the wood fuel strategy? Responsibility for that now lies with her colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change of course. Several months ago I had a meeting with the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), at which it was agreed that the programme could be doubled, but that it was important that both Departments work together on this because it is important that both demand and supply are matched up and incentivised.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the potential of wood fuel as part of a portfolio of renewable energy sources. We work very closely with our colleagues at DECC on this matter. We share a vision for the role of renewable energy, and I will address the wood fuel strategy with my DECC colleagues.

Mark Spencer: I doubt that the Secretary of State will be aware of Nottinghamshire police’s efforts to clamp down on antisocial behaviour in one of my woodlands in Sherwood, but does she agree that opening up woodlands to members of the public for the right use serves to drive out such antisocial behaviour?

Caroline Spelman: I can well imagine the problems. I suspect that every Member has some woodland in their constituency, so we will all know that that environment can, from time to time, attract the unwelcome attentions of those who perpetrate antisocial behaviour. It is therefore all the more important that people in our communities are vigilant and active in the right use of woodlands and green spaces, so that, as far as possible, we stamp out the antisocial behaviour that spoils them for everyone.

Carbon Reporting

Pamela Nash: What plans she has to bring forward proposals for mandatory carbon reporting by businesses.

Caroline Spelman: Yesterday, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, Lord Henley, launched a public consultation seeking views on whether or not regulations should be introduced to make it mandatory for some companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions. I commend Christian Aid for raising awareness of this issue in Christian Aid week, and I hope that that will also serve to raise awareness of our consultation among members of the public and encourage them to engage in it.

Pamela Nash: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Just yesterday, Lord Henley stated:
	“More consistent reporting of emissions should help investors make better use of such data”.
	Does the Secretary of State therefore agree with me and the 60,000 people who have taken the time to join Christian Aid’s campaign that consistency can be achieved only if the scheme becomes mandatory?

Caroline Spelman: We cannot pre-empt the outcome before the consultation, but institutional investors want this information in order to be able to make a more accurate assessment of companies. Most big companies already report their greenhouse gas emissions, but this is the perfect time for the hon. Lady and her colleagues to take part in the consultation, so that views may be ascertained.

James Gray: Although we all want to encourage companies, particularly big companies, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a risk of over-burdensome regulation, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises, which will result in only a very small reduction in carbon emissions?

Caroline Spelman: The coalition Government are committed to relieving the unnecessary burden of red tape on all of business, but we understand that pressures can be particularly burdensome on SMEs. If my hon. Friend looks at the proposals in the consultation, he will see that these concerns have been taken account of, and I am sure that if he participates in the consultation and further reinforces the views he has expressed in the Chamber, it will all add weight to the outcome of the consultation.

Mary Creagh: May I start by saying how unhappy the Opposition are, along with the National Farmers Union, that DEFRA questions have been castrated to a mere 45 minutes, although I understand the Government’s desire to give more time to their stellar parliamentary performer, the Deputy Prime Minister?
	In opposition, the Conservative party promised to
	“bring forward the date that the largest companies are required to report on carbon emissions”,
	yet the consultation the Government published yesterday gives companies an option to do nothing. We heard earlier this week that the hawks in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are holding up Cabinet agreement to the UK’s fourth carbon budget. Is there a Cabinet split on carbon reporting as well?

Caroline Spelman: We must set the record straight, for the sake of all hon. Members. It was the official Opposition who asked for the Deputy Prime Minister to be given a 15-minute slot, which had to come from one of the longer sessions of oral questions. If one analyses the number of questions that Opposition Members have tabled, one will see that the answer lies in their own hands. A glance at the Order Paper will confirm that twice as many Members on the coalition Benches tabled questions to DEFRA.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made her point, but she must quickly answer the question on the Order Paper, and then we will move on.

Caroline Spelman: The question on the Order Paper concerns woodland cover and encouraging communities to plant more trees. I think I have made it clear how—[Interruption.] As for carbon reporting, the consultation contains four options for companies to engage in carbon reporting. The consultation was launched yesterday, and this is the time for people to express their views on the options in the paper.

Red Diesel

George Freeman: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effects on British farmers of planned EU changes to rates of duty on red diesel.

Richard Benyon: The Secretary of State has not discussed this issue directly with the Chancellor, but officials have been in contact with the Treasury. The Commission’s proposals will not affect the ability of member states to set a lower duty on the off-road use of diesel as vehicle fuel. However, the UK does not support a mandatory pan-EU carbon tax, and nor does it support the Commission’s proposal, which would require 27 member states’ unanimous agreement before it could be adopted.

George Freeman: I thank the Minister for that reassuring answer. The EU draft proposal to remove the tax exemption on agricultural red diesel sent shockwaves through farming communities in my constituency and across British agriculture. After a decade in which the Labour party put up duty on red diesel four times, may I urge him to make the strongest representations across Whitehall and show that it is we on the Government Benches who are standing up for the rural economy?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend is to be applauded for standing up and campaigning on behalf of farmers in his constituency. They need to know that they have got a Government obsessed with keeping them competitive against a lot of international and domestic challenges. The Government recognise the value of farmers in producing food, protecting the environment and being the guardians of ecosystem services, and they now have a Government who are on their side.

Red Tape Challenge

Caroline Lucas: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the environmental regulations considered for possible revocation under the red tape challenge.

Caroline Spelman: I want to make it clear that there is no intention of relaxing existing levels of environmental protection. As a former MEP, the hon. Lady will be well aware that most environmental legislation emanates from European directives, and their complete removal would not be possible. Nevertheless, it might be possible to improve their implementation arrangements. The red tape challenge should therefore be embraced by all as an excellent opportunity to gather ideas on how we can regulate better.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, by which I am not entirely reassured. Does she know that in my constituency, in Brighton and Hove, standards for nitrogen dioxide are regularly exceeded at 20 sites across the city? Much of the pollution—as well as its costly health consequences—is caused by traffic. Will she therefore absolutely guarantee to defend the regulations on air quality that set health protection standards should they come under threat from the insidious red tape challenge?

Caroline Spelman: The air quality directive is a piece of European legislation. Therefore, it is not involved in any red tape challenge. I share with the hon. Lady a desire to improve air quality, as it has enormous benefits for the environment and for human health. The fact is that air quality demands at a European level are very ambitious and we are working closely with local authorities, the Mayor of London and others to do all we can to improve air quality.

Zoo Inspectors

Jim Cunningham: How many inspections have been carried out by her Department’s zoo inspectors since May 2010; and if she will make a statement.

James Paice: According to our records, from 1 May 2010 to 9 May 2011 DEFRA’s nominated zoo inspectors carried out 59 inspections. This is a matter for local authorities, however, and sadly they do not always inform us when inspections take place.

Jim Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that answer. Can he give me the figures for the inspection of circuses as well?

James Paice: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been a lot of speculation about circuses. There have been recent press reports that the Austrian Government have been taken to court for their attempt to ban wild animals in circuses, so our Government can hardly recommend something that might not be legal. I can assure him, however, that the proposals we will bring forward shortly will be tough enough to ensure that animal welfare in circuses is properly protected.

Gavin Shuker: It has been reported, and suggested by the Minister, that there will be enhanced inspections rather than a ban on wild animals in circuses. Labour’s consultation showed that 94% of respondents favoured a ban. The petition in The Independent attracted nearly 15,000 signatures in the past week, and crucially on 3 April DEFRA briefed that it favoureda ban as well. Another month, more drift and no announcement: is it dither, delay or No. 10 that is preventing the Secretary of State from showing some leadership?

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to the answer I just gave. Whether we like it or not, this court case is going on in Europe and therefore the British Government could not bring forward a proposal—although I am interested to hear that he would—that might well prove shortly to be unlawful.

Topical Questions

John Spellar: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Caroline Spelman: My Department’s priorities are to protect the environment, support farmers and strengthen the green economy. On Monday, I launched a report on climate resilient infrastructure with Lord Krebs and Simon Kirby of National Rail at the remodelled Blackfriars station, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport. This dry spring—the second in succession—which we are closely monitoring, reminds us all of the need to adapt to the increasing frequency of extreme weather events.

John Spellar: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. She mentioned climate, so may I ask why she is delaying bringing forward legislation on water and why she is even considering compulsory water metering in areas where there is no water shortage? In this month of the Chelsea flower show, has she considered the impact of this water tax on gardeners or even talked to her Health colleagues about the benefits of gardening for body and soul? What do this Government have against allotment holders and gardeners?

Caroline Spelman: There were a number of things there. As part of our achievements in our first year in office I would count the implementation of most of the Pitt review, so there has been clear progress in implementation. The water White Paper is due later this year, and I just mentioned how closely we are monitoring the water situation. I am very concerned that it is already having an irreversible impact on agricultural production and I have convened a meeting of all stakeholders next week as it is very important that we take this matter extremely seriously.

Stephen Barclay: The Department has spent many millions of pounds buying up some of our best farmland next to the Ouse washes to provide extra habitat for birds. The Littleport and Downham internal drainage board has expressed grave concern at the increased flooding risk to homes and other farmland. This action undermines food security and is not a good use of public funds at a time of austerity. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a local delegation to discuss that, and will his Department now publish a detailed assessment of the costs associated with it so that we can assess it properly?

Richard Benyon: The short answer is yes. Our policies have to balance nature conservation against our commitment to food security. I want to know how established schemes that have been running for many years are working, and the development of the scheme that my hon. Friend talks about dates back almost a decade. I want to make sure that we are getting things right, so I appreciate his raising that point.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will know that children learn best when they are out of the classroom. Often they learn very well in
	the natural environment—in forests and wild places. The number of school visits is collapsing under the present Government. What is the Secretary of State doing with her Education counterpart to boost the number of trips that children make to the green environment?

Richard Benyon: If the hon. Gentleman can curtail his enthusiasm for a few weeks and wait to see what is in the natural environment White Paper, I think he will rejoice that this Government get outdoor learning. The Department is working very closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and others, and is engaging with great visionaries such as Kate Humble and others for whom this is a passion, which we share.

Stephen Gilbert: Early this morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State committed to publishing the waste review in June. It is obviously going to be a landmark document for the United Kingdom, so will she commit to bringing it to the House for debate?

Caroline Spelman: It is important that all DEFRA’s publications are laid before the House; we go to great lengths to keep the House informed of all our activities. The waste review is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a landmark publication, and we look forward to publishing it shortly. We will make it widely available to hon. Members.

Joan Walley: In view of the forthcoming European Commission conference on the LIFE+ programme to protect biodiversity, will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that officials in the Environment Agency and Natural England will work right across the UK to make sure that we can get the maximum funding from that programme, particularly for the proposal that I am working on in Stoke-on-Trent to improve access to natural resources and to keep biodiversity?

Caroline Spelman: I share the hon. Lady’s passion for the protection of biodiversity and the enhancement of biodiversity where there has been biodiversity loss. I am sure that every sinew will be strained by every member of the DEFRA family to make sure that the United Kingdom does well out of any resources that are being made available through the European Union so that we can benefit by putting those resources where they will make a difference—with the protection of biodiversity.

James Gray: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) and I were campaigning long and hard against the introduction of compulsory horse passports—identification cards for horses—legal advice to DEFRA was that Ministers had three options. The first was to seek to extend the EU derogation on the subject for a further 10 years, the second was to bring in a minimal regime so that horses at abattoirs would have to have some kind of documentation, and the third was an all-singing, all-dancing, bells and whistles option, requiring every zebra, donkey, horse and pony in the land to have an ID card. Will the Minister re-examine that legal
	advice from 2005 to work out whether it might be possible to make horse ID cards voluntary rather than compulsory?

James Paice: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend’s passion for this issue, some of which I share. The advice I have received is that the decision that the previous Government unsurprisingly made to develop the most bureaucratic and regulatory option is irreversible, but I am more than happy to look at it again.

Tom Watson: Notwithstanding the Minister of State’s previous defiant answer, could the Secretary of State find it in her heart to praise The Independent for its campaign to ban wild animals from circuses? Perhaps she will join the 10,000 people who have already signed the petition that the newspaper is running by signing it herself.

Caroline Spelman: Every Member of the House can find it in their heart to do that—of course they can. We have all read newspaper reports about the terrible suffering of Anne the elephant, and I am very glad that she is being spared and has a new, far more enjoyable home. However, the report in The  Independent clearly states that the Austrian Government have been taken to court by a German circus company because of a breach of the EU services directive. It would be irresponsible of any Government—I hope he is not saying that he would do this if he were part of a Government—to recommend something that is in legal dispute.

Greg Mulholland: Yesterday at the Westminster youth fête, I was delighted to join other hon. Members in signing the Red Tractor 4 Wheels manifesto. I know that the Government and my right hon. Friend are committed to supporting UK farmers and to giving consumers information about environmental quality and assurance. How will they support the initiative?

James Paice: The Government strongly support the Red Tractor initiative, and I am sorry that I could not attend yesterday’s event, as I was at an event elsewhere in the country. However, I understand that it was a great success. As my hon. Friend well knows, we have distributed a circular, and we hope to introduce Government buying standards, as we will require all parts of central Government to buy food produced to British standards which, in most cases, will mean Little Red Tractor standards.

Jim Shannon: In the past, there has been exceptional pressure on the fishing industry at sea, which has spread to food production on land. In particular, the problems are coming from China, which is buying up a lot of food products. Has the Minister had discussions with Ministers in other regions, particularly the most recent Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, to agree a strategy and policy to address that issue?

Richard Benyon: I look forward to building again the good relationship that I had with devolved Ministers from all kinds of different parties in the different parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that, particularly
	on fisheries and marine issues, we work as one and agree, as we did, on nearly everything so that we work towards sound policies on food security, conservation and protecting valuable ecosystems. I will continue to do so.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I am trying to help Back-Bench Members, but in topical questions we must have single, short, supplementary questions and short answers.

Daniel Poulter: British dairy farmers such as Graham Tibbenham from Weybread in my constituency are struggling to be paid a fair price for their milk by British supermarkets. I am sure that the Minister would like to help. What can his Department do?

James Paice: I know the dairy industry, and many sectors face great difficulties, particularly with regard to price. The Government are about to publish proposals— we trust with all-party support—for a groceries code adjudicator, which we hope will go a long way towards helping with that. There are measures, too, going through the EU with regards to contracts. We do not think that they are the sole answer, as some do, but we think that they are a step forward.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 states that a badger cull can be carried out only between May and September. Given that any change to the Act would require secondary legislation, which could be introduced only after 1 October, will the Minister say whether there will be a badger cull this year?

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we published a consultation last autumn and, as I said to the National Farmers Union annual general meeting, it produced a number of challenges that we need to work through. We will make an announcement about a total package of measures to combat this awful disease as soon as we possibly can.

Roger Williams: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister has kindly agreed to meet a delegation from the Brecon and Radnor NFU, which will want to know what representations his Department have made on behalf of upland farmers in negotiations on the common agricultural policy. Perhaps he would like to rehearse his answer.

James Paice: I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend’s farmers next week, and I will give them a longer answer. However, the short answer is that the Government published their own uplands review a couple of months ago. As for the CAP, we have reservations about the Commission’s initial proposals to top-slice pillar 1 payments for less favoured areas. We do not think that that is the best way forward, because it would be much more bureaucratic. We think that they are best funded from pillar 2, but it is a very early stage in the negotiations and we will have to see what works. However, we recognise the sensitive difficulties, including of remoteness, for farmers in upland areas.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission ,  was asked—

Voting Preferences

Philip Hollobone: If the Electoral Commission will amend its guidance so that only a vote cast that indicates a positive preference for a candidate is counted as a valid vote.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission informs me that its guidance to returning officers for dealing with doubtful ballot papers is based on the statutory rules for elections and case law in this area. The decision to accept or reject a ballot paper lies with the returning officer.

Philip Hollobone: In the recent local elections in the borough of Kettering, one seat was decided by one vote, and the ballot paper in question had no, no and no against the three candidates from one party and no other marks. That was counted as a positive vote for the three candidates from the other party. Will my hon. Friend advise me on which aspect of legislation we need to change to correct that injustice?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend was kind enough to show me a likeness of the offending ballot paper earlier this week, and I have considerable sympathy for the point he makes. However, the situation is covered by rule 47(3) of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, with which most hon. Members will be very familiar. It states that a ballot paper shall not be deemed void if an intention that the vote shall be for one or more candidates clearly appears. He may wish to take up his laudable campaign to change the rules with the relevant Minister.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Weddings

Andrew Selous: What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to increase the number of weddings performed by the Church of England.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England’s weddings project is a package of training and resources now being used in two thirds of Church of England dioceses and is designed to encourage and promote the local parish church as a choice for weddings. It follows recent changes introduced by the Church to broaden the choice of church venues available for couples wishing to marry.

Andrew Selous: We have strong Government support for marriage and 90% of young people say that they want to get married, yet the number of marriages has halved since 1972 and it is at its lowest since 1895. As this is a serious issue of social justice, will my hon.
	Friend write to me, placing a copy in the Library, describing examples of where parishes have increased the number of weddings, with good preparation and after care, and will he encourage the archbishops to ensure that there is more of the same?

Tony Baldry: I assure my hon. Friend that the archbishops, bishops and indeed all the Church of England believe strongly in marriage and want to encourage couples to consider getting married in church. There is now a website, www.yourchurchwedding.org, which offers information on how prospective couples can get married in a church and provides a ceremony planner for them to design their own service. Every church wants to welcome couples who wish to get married in church, and I am certainly happy to write to him as requested.

Jim Shannon: Last week in Westminster Hall there was a very clear debate on families, in which the issue of marriages came up in particular. I have been approached about the matter of price and fees. Will the hon. Gentleman give some indication of whether the Church would be prepared to consider lower fees, because as we all know, the price for marriages is becoming exorbitant?

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman missed the chance only the other day to consider in Committee the occasional fees for the Church of England. He will find that the fee paid to the church for conducting a marriage is actually very modest in comparison with the overall costs. We are very keen to ensure that no one should feel in any way deterred from getting married in church as a result of the fees that are payable.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission ,  was asked—

Voter Registration

Robert Halfon: What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to increase voter registration among hard-to-reach groups.

Gary Streeter: The commission’s public information campaigns are targeted at groups that are less likely to be on the electoral register. The commission also sets standards for electoral registration officers, provides them with guidance and materials to increase electoral registration, and provides targeted support where underperformance is found. The commission has recently announced that it will take specific steps with the 45 electoral registration officers in Great Britain who have not met the standards for a number of years.

Robert Halfon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for low voting numbers is lack of literacy and people being unable to read the forms? In my constituency, we have problems with literacy. What is he doing to increase the powers of the Electoral Commission to help those with literacy problems so that they can register to vote?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to raise the problems confronting those with literacy challenges. The Electoral Commission uses a number of media, including radio and TV, in its targeted campaigning to do its best to reach everyone. It also produces a range of information in an easy-read format, which can be found on its website, but following my hon. Friend’s interest in this important matter I will certainly speak to the Electoral Commission to see what more can be done.

Joan Walley: Can I raise a matter very dear to your heart, Mr Speaker, about how we involve more people in the work of Parliament through electoral registration? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the ways in which some pilot funding could be secured to assist those in the parish and town councils of Kidsgrove in my constituency with setting up a youth parliament in order to make young people aware of how our parliamentary democracy and electoral system work?

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission is very keen to increase electoral registration and engagement in democracy. I will certainly take forward the hon. Lady’s very interesting suggestion to the commission, and we will write to her with what I hope will be a positive response.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Churchyard Trees

Nadhim Zahawi: What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to ensure that ancient trees in churchyards are protected.

Fiona Bruce: What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to ensure that ancient trees in churchyards are protected.

Tony Baldry: Ancient yews are defined as trees older than 250 years and possibly as much as 5,000 years old. Yew trees were felled on a huge scale for English longbows between the 13th and 16th centuries. The yew tree has been an important part of historical religious practice, and in Britain the Celts and Romans thought it to be associated with immortality, regeneration and protection from evil.
	In large numbers of cases, the ancient yew trees in churchyards are significantly older than the churches occupying the surrounding land. Many yew trees trace their history back to sacred groves and other such significant sacred places of earlier civilisation. There are eight sites of ancient yew trees recorded in Warwickshire and 12 in Cheshire.

Mr Speaker: We are much better informed!

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As well as being the final resting place of the great bard, William Shakespeare, Holy Trinity church in Stratford-on-Avon has 12 yew trees representing the
	12 tribes of Israel and is home to a yew tree that is estimated to be several hundred years old. Does my hon. Friend agree that the protection of such trees is extremely important in maintaining the historic settings of our great churches?

Tony Baldry: It is fantastic that Holy Trinity, Stratford, has planted 12 new yew trees, but my hon. Friend highlights the fact that a number of older yew trees, designated as ancient or veteran, have not had adequate statutory protection. The Church of England is determined to do all that it can to ensure that every yew tree in our churchyards is properly protected.

Fiona Bruce: It is excellent to hear from my hon. Friend that ancient yew trees are being preserved and protected in that way, but even with best practice no tree will last for ever. What is being done to introduce new trees to our churchyards so that future generations might enjoy that attractive part of our churchyard heritage?

Tony Baldry: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that on the eve of the millennium the Conservation Foundation charity presented churches throughout the country with some 8,500 young yew trees, propagated from trees estimated to be at least 2,000 years old. We are now asking churches that planted millennium yews to record their growth and condition on Biodiversity day, which is on Sunday 22 May. I hope, however, that a number of churches up and down the land will follow the example of Holy Trinity, Stratford, and consider planting 12 new yew trees to represent either the 12 tribes of Israel or, indeed, the 12 apostles.

Biodiversity in Churchyards

James Gray: What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to encourage churches to develop and foster biodiversity in churchyards.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England, through its own environmental campaign “Shrinking the Footprint”, along with Natural England is supporting an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund by the charity Caring for God’s Acre to extend its work encouraging and supporting churchyard biodiversity schemes nationwide.

James Gray: North Wiltshire has some of the finest and oldest churchyards anywhere in England—one thinks of Malmesbury abbey, St Bartholomew’s in Wootton Basset, St Mary’s in Calne—and dozens of tiny, ancient, hidden churchyards miles from anywhere. What can the Church Commissioners do to encourage greater biodiversity in them while preserving their peaceful, quiet charm?

Tony Baldry: The Wiltshire living churchyards project has 45 participating churchyards, helped and supported by the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Wiltshire Churches Together and Social Responsibility in Wiltshire. As my hon. Friend tells the House, Wiltshire has a unique and rich diversity of landscape, and there are annual seminars at which Wiltshire living churchyards awards certificates for continued wildlife management. The Bishops of Bristol and of Salisbury and the Church locally are determined that churches throughout Wiltshire should be opportunities to celebrate biodiversity.

Gift Aid

Jeremy Lefroy: How much the Church Commissioners received through the gift aid scheme in the past 10 years.

Tony Baldry: Church of England parishes recovered £82 million in gift aid from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in 2009, which is the last year for which we have data. Over the past 10 years, we believe that the Church has recovered a total of nearly £713 million from parish donations; this excluded donations made at cathedrals.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the recent measure in the Budget to allow donations up to £5,000 for which declarations have not been made to have tax recovered on them. What measures are the Church Commissioners taking to ensure that parishes take up this welcome opportunity?

Tony Baldry: That provision in the Budget was very welcome, as was the provision for the small donations gift aid scheme, because each year, in addition to using planned giving envelopes, people put into the collection plate some £58 million of loose change, and the scheme will be of considerable assistance in recovering tax on that money as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Church has to make the best possible use of funds that are given to it in meeting social need and ensuring that churches can be places of community resource. That also means their being places not just of worship but for the widest possible community use, whether it be for cafés, concerts, crèches or other uses for the community as a whole.

Lead Theft

David Nuttall: What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to reduce the level of lead theft from church buildings.

Tony Baldry: Last year, churches in Manchester had more lead theft than in any other area of the UK, with a significant number of insurance claims being made. Metal theft, particularly the theft of lead from church roofs, is the most serious problem facing the maintenance of the historic legacy of church buildings, with Wakefield cathedral being the most recent case. The Church recently sent a report to the Home Office in which it makes recommendations for the greater regulation of the scrap metal industry.

David Nuttall: What advice, if any, has the Church Buildings Council been able to give churches to advise them on how to help to deter thieves?

Tony Baldry: The Church is giving all possible advice to churches about effective deterrents, including what they should do regarding wireless roof alarms and other things. Frankly, though, it is a broader issue than that. The Church Buildings Council is of the view that the regulation of scrap yards is fundamental to reducing the level of metal theft. It is all too easy for roofs to be stripped of lead one night and the lead to be sold for cash the next day. We want cash transactions for lead to be made illegal, a requirement for scrap yards receiving lead or traders selling it to be licensed specially for that activity, a requirement to show documentary proof of
	identification when selling lead and to photograph each person when their identity is checked, and a requirement on scrap yards to report suspicious activity or persons to local police forces.
	It is difficult to underestimate the damage that this is doing. The number of claims—

Mr Speaker: Order. It would be very difficult for me to underestimate the comprehensiveness of the hon. Gentleman’s reply, which I think I can safely say is unsurpassed in the House.

Women Priests and Bishops

Simon Hughes: What recent assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the financial consequences for the Church of England of (a) women priests and (b) women bishops.

Tony Baldry: The General Synod of the Church of England legislated to make special financial provision for the 441 clergy who resigned from ministry between 1994 and 2004 as a result of opposition to the admission of women to the priesthood. The total cost of that to the Church Commissioners was £27.5 million plus a further call of £2.4 million on the unfunded pension scheme. The draft legislation to enable women to become bishops makes no financial provision for those who might leave should it in due course pass into law.

Simon Hughes: Now that the last remaining people who had a long-term philosophical commitment to opposing women in the ministry appear to have left the Church of England, may I urge the Church Commissioners to move with all speed to do what the vast majority of Church of England members want, which is to make sure that women can become bishops, as well as priests, at the earliest available date?

Tony Baldry: My views on this matter are well recorded. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, this matter is now out with the dioceses. I am sure that the Archdeacon of Southwark, who is a strong campaigner on this issue, will keep him informed. The dioceses are reviewing the matter and will vote on it in the near future. If they vote in the affirmative, the matter will go to the General Synod. This matter is being dealt with as speedily as is possible.

Mr Speaker: I apologise to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, but the House must hear from Mr Brian Binley.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

National Audit Office

Brian Binley: What recent assessment the Public Accounts Commission has made of the effects of the UK’s fiscal situation on the work and budget of the National Audit Office.

Edward Leigh: In response to the UK’s fiscal situation, the National Audit Office’s strategy for the three years from April 2011 set out plans to save 15% in nominal terms and 21% in real terms over that period. In exploring the strategy in November, the commission considered the effect of the cost reductions on public spending and on the NAO’s work on the use of resources by public sector bodies. The commission concluded that the cost reduction proposals were sound, and it approved the NAO’s budgets for the three-year period.

Brian Binley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. However, does he recognise that the National
	Audit Office generates about 11 times its cost in savings? Was the commission therefore wise to create a reduction? Should the NAO not be given its usual allowance of resources to allow it to save more money for the general public?

Edward Leigh: Normally, I agree with my hon. Friend, but the NAO cannot be exempt from the pressure on the budgets of all Departments. It is vital that the NAO leads by example. Under the guidance of the commission, it is doing as many reports as possible, more economically and more speedily, and is saving more money for the taxpayer.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for next week will be:
	Monday 16 May—Motion to approve the 15th report 2010-2012 of the Standards and Privileges Committee (HC 1023), followed by general debate on the middle east, north Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	Tuesday 17 May—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Localism Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Localism Bill (Day 1).
	Wednesday 18 May—Remaining stages of the Localism Bill (Day 2).
	Thursday 19 May—Motion relating to the BBC World Service, followed by motion relating to rural broadband and mobile coverage. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 23 May will include:
	Monday 23 May—Opposition Day (16th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 24 May—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Subject to the approval of the House, colleagues will wish to be aware that the House will meet at 11.30 am on this day.
	Colleagues will also wish to be reminded that subject to the progress of business the House will rise for the Whitsun recess on Tuesday 24 May 2011 and return on Tuesday 7 June 2011.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. May I begin by expressing our deep sadness at the untimely loss of our dear friend and colleague, David Cairns? He was a lovely man, he was a principled man, he was a fine Minister, and he will be missed by all of us greatly.
	Will the Leader of the House tell us when we will have a statement on the shortfall in funding at the Ministry of Defence following the strategic defence and security review? The Defence Secretary told the Defence Committee that he would make a statement after the elections, and Members from all parts of the House are anxious to hear the outcome. When will the Armed Forces Bill return to the House so that the Government can honour their commitment, as we have been urging them to do, to enshrine the military covenant in law?
	May we have an urgent statement from the Home Secretary to explain what she plans to do following the humiliating defeat of her proposals for police commissioners in the other place yesterday?
	May we have a debate on the Prime Minister’s broken election pledge to make Britain the most family friendly country in Europe? This week, the Centre for Social Justice, the think-tank founded by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said that the coalition has
	failed to support marriage, unfairly penalised middle-class parents, and done “almost nothing” to address the breakdown of families.
	What about the greenest government ever pledge? This week, a leaked letter revealed that the Business Secretary is arguing for a lower carbon reduction target than that recommended by the Committee on Climate Change. May we have a statement on whether the Prime Minister is going to accept or reject that target?
	On Sunday, the Deputy Prime Minister said about his own Government’s NHS reforms:
	“I am not going to ask Liberal Democrat MPs…to proceed with legislation on something as precious and cherished as the NHS unless I personally am satisfied that what these changes do is an evolutionary change in the NHS and not a disruptive revolution.”
	So now we know that the Deputy Prime Minister, who originally backed the Bill, actually thinks it is disruptive, when will we see the significant and substantial changes that the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised the House?
	Will the Leader of the House explain why we have still not seen the higher education White Paper, when a bit of it was announced on the “Today” programme on Tuesday rather than in Parliament? The Universities Minister got himself into a terrible mess with his idea of well-off students paying for off-quota places at university. I suppose that with internships having been sold off at a Tory fundraiser, one could see that as the logical next step for social class mobility. Downing street, however, was not amused, and said so. It stated:
	“We are not quite sure what he was trying to say but it wasn’t very helpful.”
	So while the Minister was forced to come to the House to deny the rumour that he himself had started, the House waits in vain for a coherent policy.
	May we have a statement on free schools, now that nearly nine out of 10 applications have been turned down? A disappointed Downing street source—they have been very busy dumping on Ministers this week—admitted that free schools had not been a success and said:
	“I guess you’d give Michael a six out of 10”.
	It is not just Cabinet Ministers who have been done over. What does the Leader of the House make of the Downing street source who, talking about the Prime Minister’s dismal performances at Prime Minister’s questions, said:
	“It’s just not working. We’re not winning enough. The Flashman image is very damaging and we need to address it before it becomes an accepted stereotype”?
	As the House saw yesterday, it is far too late for that already.
	Finally, may we have a debate on the state of the coalition? It has been a shambolic week for a dysfunctional Cabinet, with the Prime Minister and his deputy now openly arguing with each other just 12 months after they took their coalition vows. Perhaps that was why, smarting from electoral defeat, the Business Secretary finally gave vent to his feelings over the weekend when he described the Prime Minister’s party as
	“ruthless, calculating and thoroughly tribal.”
	We could have told him that, but has it really taken him a whole 12 months to notice it? If so, does not that degree of naivety prove that he is, after all, part of the greenest Government ever?

George Young: May I begin by endorsing what the right hon. Gentleman said about David Cairns? He was a decent, able man, and it is a tragedy that he has been taken from his friends and from the House at such a young age.
	The Secretary of State for Defence will want to keep the House informed of the latest position on the Ministry of Defence budget. On the Armed Forces Bill, as I think I have said before, we want the House to have the military covenant before Third Reading. Work is continuing on finalising the covenant and it will be placed before the House relatively soon, and shortly after that we will have Third Reading.
	As far as the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill is concerned, we are of course disappointed by the defeat in the House of Lords, because the election of police and crime commissioners is part of the coalition agreement and was part of the Bill that was passed from this House to the other place. It is regrettable that the other place has decided to take the steps that it has. The Bill will, of course, return to this Chamber, and I hope that when it does we will have the support of the shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who made it very clear in 2008 that
	“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical.”
	I hope that Labour Front Benchers will therefore join us in seeking to overturn the amendment made in the Lords.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked for a whole series of debates on a range of subjects. I have just announced that there will be an Opposition day on Monday week, so he can choose to debate any of the subjects that he mentioned.
	On the fourth carbon budget, the right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the press. We are committed to announcing before the end of next month the target for 2023 to 2027, and I anticipate that we will make a statement quite soon and that the draft statutory instrument will be laid before the House in good time for it to be debated.
	We debated the NHS on Monday in Opposition time, when a rather weak attack from them was easily seen off by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
	The higher education White Paper was dealt with in an urgent question by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science. It will be published before the summer recess.
	The shadow Leader of the House then asked about the coalition. I note that yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
	“We will stand together, but not so closely that we stand in each other’s shadow.”
	It is manifestly obvious to anyone that the Deputy Leader of the House and I could never stand in each other’s shadow. As ever, the shadow Leader of the
	House painted a rather dismal picture of the Government, but one must ask this question: if we are doing so badly, why is he not doing better?
	Perhaps on the next Opposition day, we can hear from some of the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) said that Labour’s disastrous adventures in Scotland last week were the result of 30 years of “arrogance and complacency” and that “Labour deserved to lose.” Last night, in a spectacular own goal, the shadow Culture Secretary was forced to rewrite a speech that admitted that Labour was seen as a
	“party which overspent without delivering sufficient value for money”,
	before warning that on the current strategy, the Labour party would lose the next general election.
	All that confirms that while there are some lively debates between the two parties in the coalition, they are nothing compared with the civil war in the Labour party.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, a great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is another statement to follow, and then two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, so there is a premium on economy, both in questions and indeed in answers.

Alok Sharma: May we have a debate on the practice in some councils of funding the salaries of full-time union officials with taxpayers’ money, to consider whether Members of this House believe that that is an appropriate use of taxpayers’ funds?

George Young: I commend my hon. Friend on the initiative that he is taking to use freedom of information requests to find out more about the resources that are being allocated in that direction. At a time of financial restraint, I would expect all employers to ensure that such facilities are put to their proper use. However, at the end of the day, it is up to the employer on the one hand, and the trade union on the other, to agree to an amount of time and then to see that that is not exceeded.

Stella Creasy: The last time I had the honour to be in the Chamber to listen to the late Member for Inverclyde, he made a passionate defence of the rights of gays and lesbians in Uganda. We hear that tomorrow, the Ugandan legislature might discuss a further oppressive piece of legislation on the rights of gays in Uganda. May we have an urgent statement from the Government on what they are doing to follow his words urging them to make representations to the Ugandans about ceasing the hateful rhetoric that they deploy against gay people, and to ensure that we stand up for their human rights, as he would have done?

George Young: I commend and agree with what the hon. Lady says, and I pay tribute to the campaign that David Cairns championed. I agree that what is happening in Uganda is an important subject. It might be appropriate for her to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall, so that a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister can indicate that the Government share her
	concern, and outline the action that we might take with the appropriate representatives of the Ugandan Government.

Elizabeth Truss: After years of failure to make the Barrow crossing at Downham Market safe and wasting money on a proposed footbridge that nobody wants, may we have a debate on Network Rail’s accountability?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right that Network Rail’s corporate governance structure is supremely difficult to follow. We have a commitment to make it properly accountable to its customers, and at the moment we are examining the structures and incentives of the industry to see how best to enable that. I hope that that helps her, but in the meantime I can only suggest that she redoubles her correspondence with Network Rail to see whether there is an appropriate solution to the position at Downham Market.

Kelvin Hopkins: More evidence has been reported this week of the growing crisis in the private care homes sector. Private care homes are desperately seeking more funding from local authorities, but they have had their funding cut by central Government. May we have a serious debate on the future of all aspects of long-term care, including funding, growing privatisation, which has caused a lot of the problem, and the risk to the elderly people in those care homes?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the funding problems for private care homes. He will know that we have asked Andrew Dilnot to chair a commission that is shortly to report on the long-term structure of funding for residential and nursing home care. I anticipate that once that report is in the public domain, the House will want to debate it. The hon. Gentleman may have heard on the radio this morning that certain parts of the country have seen a 4% increase in spending on adult services, and we put an extra £2 billion into social care in the public expenditure announcement.

Chris White: On Monday, all Warwickshire MPs met the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership. I was extremely impressed with the work that the LEP is doing to engage with local businesses to promote growth and job creation. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the work of local enterprise partnerships and how we can best support them?

George Young: I was pleased to hear of the initiative of the MPs for Coventry and Warwickshire. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the written ministerial statement issued today on local enterprise partnerships—he may have already seen it—that announces a new £5 million start-up fund for LEPs. That would be a valuable topic for the House to discuss in Westminster Hall.

David Winnick: Although we always have our constituency duties during recesses, why on earth are we breaking up for two weeks? This House did not meet for three weeks over Easter. How many places up and down the country break up for two weeks for what is described as Whitsun?

George Young: Speaking for myself—and, I am sure, for a large number of other hon. Members—I will be actively engaged in my constituency over the Whitsun recess, which I certainly do not regard as a two-week holiday. Also, speaking from memory, I think that this year the House will be sitting for longer than the previous year. If we look overall throughout the year, it is certainly not the case that since the general election we are sitting for fewer days than before.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on power line technology devices that are used across the land to connect computers in homes? The 2006 regulations that govern the use of such devices set no maximum interference levels. However, as their usage is becoming more prevalent, organisations such as the Civil Aviation Authority are becoming concerned. Can the Government address this issue?

George Young: I understand that my hon. Friend’s wish has been granted and that he has won an Adjournment debate on the subject next Wednesday.

Pete Wishart: Can the Leader of the House—if he is paying attention—tell us when the Scotland Bill is likely to return for its remaining stages? When it comes back, will he also ensure enough time to debate and secure the extra economic powers that the Scottish people voted for with the overwhelming re-election of a Scottish National party majority Government last week?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will have heard that I have not announced further debate on the Scotland Bill between now and the Whitsun recess. I anticipate that we will be addressing it thereafter. It is the coalition Government’s intention that there should always be adequate time on Report to debate important issues. I hope to make enough time available for proper consideration of the Scotland Bill, including the issue that he has just touched on.

Greg Mulholland: More than 300,000 people have signed the petition to save the Leeds children’s heart unit, yet right hon. and hon. Members have not had the chance to debate the review of services that started under the previous Government. Will the Government please make time available in the timetable for all Members to express their views on this important issue?

George Young: The next opportunity, at Health questions, will be on 7 June—the issue was also raised at business questions last week by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), albeit in a slightly different context. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, together with others who feel strongly on the matter, have approached the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it would allocate time for a debate on this important subject, which I know has generated a lot of concern in many parts of England.

Paul Flynn: Sense, science and experience prove that the killing of badgers does not reduce bovine TB. When can we debate the Government’s indifference to animal suffering and their
	determination to prostrate themselves before their trigger-happy farming friends, so that they can walk all over them in a mass, futile slaughter of these beautiful, defenceless creatures?

George Young: I represent a rural constituency where people’s view of badgers is slightly different from the one that the hon. Gentleman enunciated. Also, we have just had Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, at which I understand the issue of badgers was raised.

Jessica Lee: Today is national nurses day. I am particularly pleased to support the campaign as my mother gave over 40 years’ service to the NHS as a children’s nurse. Will my right hon. Friend consider making parliamentary time available for a debate on the welcome recent increase in the numbers of nurses, health visitors and midwives in the NHS, along with the valuable role that nursing staff play in the NHS in my local community hospital at Ilkeston and, of course, across the country?

George Young: I commend my hon. Friend—and her mother—for her commitment to the national health service. Today is indeed international nurses day, which is held on the anniversary of Florence Nightingale’s birthday. My hon. Friend reminds the House that there are now 200 more nurses, midwives and health visitors working in the NHS since the general election. Opposition Members may say that they trained them, but they also have to be paid for. We have provided extra resources for the NHS that Labour would not have provided. Today is an opportunity to raise the profile of nurses and encourage more people to think of nursing as a career, as well as to pay tribute to the compassion, commitment and leadership that nurses show day in, day out.

Barry Sheerman: Yesterday we launched the United Nations decade for reducing road injuries and fatalities. We are also approaching the 30th anniversary of our successful campaign to introduce mandatory seatbelt legislation. The most likely way worldwide for young people to die is on the road in a car crash. When can we have a debate that highlights this important subject?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman may have seen the written ministerial statement yesterday, which was aimed at making better use of the police’s resources and focusing on really dangerous driving, as opposed to less dangerous driving. He rightly reminds the House that, I think, 2,222 people were killed on our roads last year. I hope that he will apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on road safety so that we can consider these issues at greater length.

Andrew Stephenson: Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate on the fact that from 30 June, properties used as holiday lets will require energy performance certificates under new guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government? The change will increase the cost of regulation for thousands of small businesses across the UK —something that I would have thought Ministers would have opposed.

George Young: The Government are committed to reducing the amount of carbon emitted by buildings, and energy performance certificates are an important part of that initiative. Holiday lets are exempt if they are let for more than four months a year. I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but landlords will benefit from reduced energy costs if they bring their properties up to standard, so I hope that they will see the other side of the coin.

Dave Watts: Despite my writing to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), tabling questions and having an Adjournment debate, he has refused to publish the document outlining the proposals to privatise my local trust. May we have a debate on ministerial accountability so that we can raise these important matters?

George Young: There is no way that a hospital can be privatised. That simply cannot happen. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he had a debate in Westminster Hall on this issue to which my right hon. Friend the Health Minister responded. I understand that correspondence is now taking place between the two of them. At the heart of the issue is how the hon. Gentleman’s hospital can meet the standards necessary to become a foundation trust and the need to explore the various options, including merger with another trust. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend and he will write to him.

Lee Scott: Will the Leader of the House ask whether we can have an oral statement on the recent United Nations report on the 40,000 civilian deaths caused by the Sri Lankan Government in the recent conflict?

George Young: My hon. Friend, who is chairman of the all-party group on Sri Lanka and to whose work I pay tribute, reminds the House of the atrocities on both sides in the recent civil war in Sri Lanka and the publication of the UN report. It would be appropriate for him to apply for an Adjournment debate—perhaps in Westminster Hall—to look at the implications of that report and identify any action that it would be appropriate for Her Majesty’s Government to take.

Toby Perkins: Yesterday Members debated the Education Bill. However, the debate was incomplete because the admissions code had still not been provided, despite the assurances given by the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) that it would be available in time for Third Reading. May we have a statement to assure the House that in future we will not have debates when large and important parts of background information that are relevant to the Bill have not been provided? May we also have a statement about when we will see the admissions code, which is so important to Members in debating our education policy?

George Young: I will refer the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and get an answer to his question on when the admissions code will be published. I also say in passing that I think
	we provided adequate time for discussion of the Education Bill, and I note that, in Committee, the Opposition spokesman said:
	“I…thank the Government and Opposition Whips for the orderly way they have organised our business.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 5 April 2011; c. 993.]
	The Government do not in any way want to obstruct discussion of that Bill.

Edward Timpson: May we have a debate on the recent recovery of salmon stock in Scottish rivers, so that we can debate the importance of the subsidy to Scotland and the effect that its withdrawal would have on those stocks?

George Young: The reason that I pause is that I am not sure whether responsibility for salmon is a devolved matter—[ Interruption. ] It is devolved; I see a nod from the Opposition Benches. Sadly, therefore, I cannot organise a debate on salmon in Scotland, but my hon. Friend has drawn attention to a more generic point about resources flowing from Westminster to the north. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to debate that when the Scotland Bill returns.

Clive Efford: May we have a debate on the coalition agreement? I think that the country has a right to know exactly what state that document is now in. The Health and Social Care Bill is now at a pausing, listening and reflecting stage, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill was severely reformed by the Lords last night and, on Tuesday, we had the debacle of the statement on off-quota higher education places. If the coalition document were brought to the Floor of the House, both Government parties could table amendments to it and we could debate in public exactly what is happening to the agreement and understand it in greater detail.

George Young: On the various issues, we had a debate on the national health service on Monday, and I indicated a few moments ago that we would be seeking to reverse the decision of the House of Lords on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The coalition is in good shape; we are getting on with strong, decisive, united government, which is what this country needs.

Andrew Bridgen: To mark the anniversary of the general election and the formation of this Government, may we have an urgent debate on the achievements of the past 12 months and the many promises on which we have already delivered?

George Young: It might be expecting too much for the Opposition to allocate the next Opposition day for a whole-day debate on the successes of the coalition Government. We have cut the deficit, we have capped immigration and we have frozen the council tax, etc., etc. The Localism Bill will be debated next week, and its Report stage might provide an opportunity to talk about our successes in that field.

Luciana Berger: During the local election campaign, an 18-year-old candidate in my constituency was subjected to relentless attacks about his age by his Liberal Democrat opponent. One letter sent to residents made negative references to
	his age no less than three times. As the minimum age for standing for election was reduced to 18 to encourage more young people to get involved in politics, does the Leader of the House agree that his coalition partners should not attack younger people for wanting to serve their community? May we have a debate on how we might further encourage young people to take part in our democracy?

George Young: I am very much in favour of young people standing for local government. The Deputy Leader of the House tells me that a 19-year-old in his constituency was recently successful, as was a 21-year-old in my own constituency. The more young people who stand for local authorities and, indeed, for this place, the better.

Christopher Pincher: For nearly four years, I worked with the NHS and saw at close quarters the huge bureaucracy in the connecting for health programme, in the national programme for information technology, in strategic health authorities and in primary care trusts. May we have a debate on the progress that has been made to reduce Labour’s bureaucratic legacy and to increase the numbers of clinicians, which is what our constituents really want?

George Young: My hon. Friend reminds me that the number of doctors has increased by 2,478—[ Interruption. ] They may have been trained, but they had to be paid for by somebody. At the same time, more than 3,500 full-time equivalent managers have been cut. That is in stark contrast with what happened under Labour, when the number of managers increased six times as fast as the number of nurses.

Jonathan Reynolds: May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the assistance that we are able to give to constituents who are detained abroad? One of my constituents, Mr Joseph Nunoo-Mensah, a respected surgeon at King’s college hospital, is currently being detained in Dubai, having been charged with making a hand gesture at another motorist. I understand that Mr Nunoo-Mensah, who strongly denies the charge, cannot leave the country until after his hearing, which could be weeks or even months away. Meanwhile, he has patients here in the UK who need his expertise. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House would be gracious enough to raise this matter with his colleagues in the Foreign Office, who I would prevail upon to do all they can to ensure that my constituent’s hearing is held as promptly as possible.

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about his constituent. If he has not already done so, I will contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see what consular assistance can be made available to this UK citizen in the distressing circumstances in which he finds himself.

Jake Berry: For the past two weeks, uncontrolled moorland fires have been burning in my constituency of Belmont and Darwen. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on whether the ban on controlled moorland burning is increasing the prevalence of uncontrolled fires? Specifically on the fires burning in my constituency, will he join me
	in praising the courage of the firemen from Lancashire and Manchester who have been fighting them day and night?

George Young: I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend has just said about the emergency services combating the serious fires in his constituency, and indeed in others. I cannot promise him a debate in Government time, but in the light of what has just happened, this strikes me as an appropriate subject for debate in Westminster Hall or for an Adjournment debate in this Chamber.

Ian Murray: Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House whether we could have an urgent statement on the Government’s intention to scrap the Equality Act 2010. In the recent meeting of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the Business Secretary said that that was not the Government’s intention, and that a correction would be placed on the Red Tape Challenge website, which is suggesting that the Act will be scrapped. Given that no such correction has been placed on the website, may we have an urgent statement on the Government’s intention in relation to the Equality Act?

George Young: I understand that this issue could be raised with the Home Secretary at the next Home Office questions. In the meantime, I will see whether she can write to the hon. Gentleman to address the issue that he has just raised.

Gavin Barwell: On Monday, the Home Secretary set out proposals to cut police bureaucracy that would save up to 2.5 million hours of police time, the equivalent of 1,200 officers. May we have a debate on those proposals, to discuss what else the Government could do to ensure that, despite the difficult decisions on public spending, our constituents do not see a decline in visible policing?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the speech that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave on Monday about the steps we are taking to decrease bureaucracy in the police force. I understand that the measures will release the equivalent of some 1,200 police officers, and she indicated that more was to come. She also made it clear that
	“the days of the bureaucrats controlling and managing the police from Whitehall are over”,
	and I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

Diana Johnson: The Deputy Prime Minister keeps reminding the House that the flagship pupil premium policy of the Lib Dems is delivering for pupils in the poorer areas of the country, but my understanding from schools in my constituency is that they are gaining no net benefit from the measure. May we have a debate on the effect of the pupil premium on those poorer areas?

Michael Gove: That is a very good idea.

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated that he would welcome such a debate. We have made provision for constant cash per pupil to be topped up by the pupil premium, so, against the background of the difficult decisions that the Government have had to take, education has had a good deal.

David Nuttall: May we please have a debate on the Ministry of Justice’s 2011 compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis, so that the fact that prison works can be highlighted? The report contains proof that those who serve longer sentences are less likely to reoffend than those who serve shorter ones.

George Young: I can tell my hon. Friend that we will shortly be introducing a legal services and sentencing Bill, at which point it will be possible to debate this matter at greater length, as well as looking at the relative effectiveness of shorter sentences, about which some criticism has been made.

Derek Twigg: There is support on both sides of the House for the proposed £600 million Mersey Gateway bridge. It was given planning permission last year, and we were told that a decision on funding would be made by the end of last year. That decision has still not been made, because of issues relating to the funding package. Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement from either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Transport Secretary to explain the delay? The longer this goes on, the more the cost of the bridge rises.

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the delay in constructing the bridge. I will share the concerns he has just expressed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman indicating a time scale for the construction of this bridge.

Julian Sturdy: Will the Leader of the House assure me that there will be enough time within the remaining stages of the Localism Bill to discuss the empowerment of local authorities further to protect our green belt land from inappropriate development, which affects my constituency of York Outer?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. We will be debating the Localism Bill next week. Any proposal for development in the green belt is subject to stringent tests, and planning policy guidance note 2 explains the key policy: a presumption against inappropriate development on green belt land. We are committed to maintaining the green belt, and it says so in the coalition agreement.

Madeleine Moon: May we have a debate on car manufacturing in the UK? This year, Ford is celebrating its centenary of manufacturing in the UK and more than 30 years in my constituency, where the engine plant produces more than 1 million engines a year. It is also producing the new eco-engine, and more than one third of all cars that are Ford-manufactured in the UK have an engine that is produced in the UK—in either Bridgend or Dagenham. We have an increased number of engineers, increased manufacturing
	and an increased number of apprenticeships to celebrate in Bridgend. May we have a debate so that this can be recognised, at a time when we are negative about manufacturing in this country?

George Young: Owing to the eloquence of the hon. Lady we have almost had that debate. She will be pleased to hear that manufacturing output increased by some 5% in the first quarter of the year. I entirely endorse every word that she said; manufacturing is important to this country’s future, and I hope that the steps we have taken in the Budget will encourage inward investment and the production of yet more eco-friendly engines at the plant in Bridgend.

Neil Carmichael: Given the interest in the subject of bank lending to small and medium-sized enterprises and the forthcoming Independent Commission on Banking report, may we have a debate on that issue?

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that under Project Merlin a specific commitment was given to increase lending to SMEs—I believe the figure was some £90 billion—and we are very anxious that that should be maintained. I am sure that when we have the ICB’s final report there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter at greater length. It is important that SMEs have continued access to bank lending so that they can invest in the future.

Tom Greatrex: May we have an urgent Government statement on the disgraceful situation in which coastguards in Stornoway and Cornwall are being barred from giving evidence to the Select Committee on Transport next week about the impact of the Government’s proposals on coastguards? If the people who know about coastguard services are being barred from giving evidence to the Committee, surely that reduces any suggestion of confidence in this policy.

George Young: My understanding is that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) is coming to give evidence to the Transport Committee and that arrangements
	are being made for informal meetings between the Committee and coastguards outside this House, so I am not sure that it is exactly correct to say that members of the Select Committee have been denied access to coastguards. My understanding is that informal meetings are being arranged.

Nadhim Zahawi: Martin Penny, the principal of Stratford-upon-Avon college, and his team are passionate about giving young people the tools to gain and maintain jobs in the private sector through apprenticeships. My right hon. Friend may have heard the way in which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out an agenda for tackling youth unemployment this morning. May we have a debate about this serious and important issue?

George Young: I would welcome a debate on the important issue of youth unemployment, where we inherited a substantial figure—I believe it was 1.4 million. My hon. Friend may have heard today’s announcement of £60 million to get more vulnerable young people into work, and he will know that we are committed to 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years and radical reforms to transform vocational training. I would welcome such a debate, but I am afraid that I cannot promise the time for it immediately.

Graham Evans: Parents in my constituency have come together to work to set up a free school in Sandymoor. This exciting development will bring a much-needed boost to local school choice and it has my full support. May we have a debate on the importance of providing top-quality advice and support to aspiring free school founders, so that we can help to make their efforts just that little bit easier?

George Young: I am delighted to hear that parents in my hon. Friend’s constituency are planning to set up a free school and I welcome the support that he is giving them. It is important that those interested in setting up free schools have access to advice and support, which is why the Department for Education has funded the New Schools Network, an independent charitable organisation, to offer support to individuals and groups such as those he mentioned.

Vocational Education

Michael Gove: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to a make a statement on the next stage of this coalition Government’s radical reform programme to make opportunity more equal. I should like to outline our response to Professor Alison Wolf’s groundbreaking report on vocational education. In her work, Professor Wolf stresses the importance of fundamental reform across the board to improve state education, and I would first like to update the House on our progress towards that goal.
	It is a year to the day since the new Department for Education was created to raise standards for all children and narrow the gap between rich and poor. In that year: we have introduced a pupil premium—£2.5 billion of additional spending on the poorest pupils; we have extended the free provision of nursery education for all three and four-year-olds and introduced free nursery education for all disadvantaged two-year-olds; we have launched the most comprehensive review ever of care for children with special needs; we have overhauled child protection rules to ensure that social workers are better able to help the most vulnerable children; we have allowed all schools to use the high-quality exams which the last Government restricted to the private sector; we are ensuring that spelling, punctuation and grammar are properly recognised in exams; we have recruited Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson to restore proper narrative history teaching; and we are doubling the number of great graduates becoming teachers through Teach First and doubling the number of great heads becoming national leaders of education.
	We have also created more than 400 new academies, tripling the number we inherited and creating more academies in 12 months than the last Government did in 12 years. I can confirm to the House today that we have now received more than 1,000 applications from schools wishing to become academies and more than 300 applications to set up free schools, many from great teachers such as the inspirational head teacher Patricia Sowter, and the former Downing street aide Peter Hyman.
	Those achievements have been made possible by the united strength of two parties with a shared commitment to social mobility working together, and I wish to take this opportunity to underline my thanks, for the part they have played in pushing this programme forward, to the Deputy Prime Minister, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), to the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has responsibility for children and families, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). It is my personal hope that we will all be able once more to make use of his talents in the country’s service before too long.
	We will be building on the momentum generated by our reform programme by today accepting all the recommendations in Professor Wolf’s report on vocational education. She found that although there are many great vocational education courses and institutions providing excellent vocational education that are heavily oversubscribed, hundreds of thousands of young people
	are taking qualifications that have little or no value. That is because: the system is overly complex; after years of micro-management and mounting bureaucratic costs, it is also hugely expensive; and there are counter-productive and perverse incentives that steer students into inferior courses. In short, the damaging system of vocational education that we inherited is failing young people and must be changed now before the prospects of generations of young people are further blighted.
	Securing our country’s future relies upon us developing our own world-class education system, from which young people graduate with not only impeccable qualifications and deep subject knowledge, but the real practical and technical skills they need to succeed. This Government support high-quality vocational education not just for its utility; vocational education is valuable in its own right. It is part of the broad and balanced curriculum that every pupil should be able to enjoy. It allows young people to develop their own special craft skills, to experience the satisfaction of technical accomplishment, and to expand what they know, understand and can do. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has repeatedly and eloquently argued, we need to elevate the practical and treat vocational education not, as it has been seen in the past, as an inferior route for the less able, but as an aspirational path for those with specific aptitudes. That is why we are taking immediate steps to rebuild the currency of vocational qualifications.
	As recommended by Professor Wolf, we have reinstated several qualifications which lead to professional success, for example, certificates in electrical engineering and plumbing, which we know are highly valued by schools and colleges, and are admired by employers. Because we know that the current set of qualifications does not meet all needs, we will work with awarding bodies and others to ensure that more high-quality courses are available for students of all levels.
	Because we know that the current league table system does not reward the progress made by students of all abilities, we will reform league tables to recognise the achievements of the lowest and highest-achieving. And because we know that not all qualifications are equal, we will further reform the league tables to guarantee that vocational qualifications are given a proper weighting. Their value will no longer be inflated in a way that encourages students to pursue inappropriate courses, or overlooked in a way that unbalances achievement.
	Because we know the current funding system creates perverse incentives, we will reform it. At the moment, schools and colleges are incentivised to offer lower-grade qualifications that are easier to pass because they get paid on those results. That must end. The dumbing-down of the past has got to stop if the next generation are to succeed. Students should choose the qualifications they need to succeed, not those that bureaucracies deem appropriate.
	However, while choice in the qualifications market is crucial, there are certain inescapable facts in the labour market that no student can ignore. Employers rightly insist that students be properly literate and numerate. They remind us that there are no more important vocational subjects than English and maths. As Professor Wolf’s report lays bare, huge numbers of students leave education without proper qualifications in those areas, making it increasingly hard for them to secure jobs.
	This Government will put an end to that by ensuring that all 16 to 18-year-olds who were unable to secure at least a C in English and maths at GCSE will continue to study those subjects through to age 19.
	The best performing education systems not only offer a strong grounding in the basics such as English and maths, but ensure a good general education that cements the ability to reason, to assess evidence, to absorb knowledge and to adapt to new opportunities. In this fast-changing world, few 16-year-olds know exactly what they will be doing at the age of 21, let alone when they are 25, 35 or 45, so we need to ensure that every 18-year-old has followed a broad programme of study and has a core academic knowledge that provides a secure foundation from which to progress. That is why Professor Wolf backs our English baccalaureate as a springboard to future success in a rapidly changing world and stresses that it gives students the maximum freedom to choose between academic and vocational pathways throughout their life.
	We know that the most prestigious vocational pathways require a rounded school education as preparation. Professor Wolf’s report underlines that some of the best vocational education in the world exists in our private sector apprenticeship programmes. The best are massively oversubscribed. BT typically has 15,000 applicants for 100 places each year. Rolls-Royce has 10 applicants for every place and Network Rail is similarly oversubscribed. There is far greater competition for some of these courses than there is for places at Oxford or Cambridge.
	We want to ensure that all employers get the support they need to offer high quality apprenticeships. The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning is working to reduce the bureaucracy that employers face and to ensure that every penny spent by Government and employers on apprenticeships can be used to the very best effect, including by studying best practice with similar schemes around the world.
	Professor Wolf emphasised the need for clear routes for progression, but also for greater flexibility within them. She was right to do so. We will consider what further programmes of study are needed, alongside the general educational component, to give 16 to 18-year-olds the broad education they need.
	For more than a century, there have been numerous, failed attempts to reform vocational education. It is now more important than ever that we finally bring an end to the two-tier education system that has scarred our country for too long. Professor Wolf’s report, together with wider reforms like the fantastic university technical colleges being pioneered by Lord Baker, sets out a clear map of what we need to do. I am delighted that Professor Wolf has agreed to continue to provide regular and ongoing advice to Government as we implement her recommendations. I cannot think of anyone better qualified to help us offer young people the genuine and high-quality technical education they have been too long denied. I commend this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am pleased that he has managed to join us today. We touched on many similar themes yesterday in an enjoyable and lively discussion. I hope that, in preparing his statement today, he has had time to catch up on it.
	We devote a great deal of time to higher education, but much less to improving opportunities for young people who do not plan to go to university. I have long advocated redressing that balance and it is now an urgent imperative in view of the Government’s changes to higher education.
	As I said when the report was published, I find much to welcome in Professor Wolf’s vision for higher-quality vocational education. I agree with some aspects of what the Secretary of State has said today, particularly the commitment to ensuring that every young person reaches a decent level of proficiency in English and maths before they leave school and that all programmes of study lead to progression. I also welcome efforts to simplify the system and qualifications in vocational education to make it easier for young people to navigate their way through.
	Professor Wolf recommends the adoption of multiple measures of school performance, echoing the moves we made in government towards a balanced school report card approach. The Secretary of State has accepted that today, in speaking of his promise to reform league tables to create new performance management measures in addition to the English baccalaureate. I will give careful consideration to the measures he brings forward, but I gently warn him that his plans to measure students at the top and the bottom already sound complex. Is he not in danger of recreating in another form a complex target regime of the type of which he complained so frequently when he was in opposition? Will not teachers’ hearts sink when they hear that there are to be more targets? Will they not question whether he is delivering on the autonomy to get on and teach that he promised them? Will he give us an assurance that he will consult teachers before dropping any new performance management measure on them, as he did with the English baccalaureate?
	Even with a range of measures in force, Professor Wolf’s report rightly warns of the consequences if a single performance measure becomes dominant. Let me quote from her report, which said that there
	“remains a serious risk that schools will simply ignore their less academically successful pupils. This was a risk with the old five GCSEs measure; a risk with the English baccalaureate; and will be a risk with a measure based on selected qualifications. It needs to be pre-empted.”
	Rather than pre-empt this risk, however, did not the Secretary of State pre-empt the Wolf report by presenting his English baccalaureate as the “gold standard” for schools?
	Schools are clearly seeing it that way. Why otherwise are we seeing music, RE and arts teachers being made redundant right here, right now? Why otherwise are we seeing students under pressure from schools to switch subjects halfway through their courses or to take courses that they do not really want to do, diminishing their choice? This is becoming the dominant headline measure against which all schools and students are judged. The Secretary of State needs more convincing answers on how he plans to stop that happening.
	More broadly, has not this highly prescriptive league table measure, and its arbitrary subject selection, already damaged the deliverability of Professor Wolf’s vision by relegating vocational learning to second-division status in the public mind and in the minds of schools? The Secretary of State mentioned a two-tier system, but is that not precisely what this Government are creating—an
	elitist, two-tier system in which parents have fewer rights on admissions, making it more difficult for them to get their children into good schools? The parent voice is diminished. Creative and practical subjects are crucial to the quality vocational education that Professor Wolf advocates, but they are already a devalued currency in our schools because of the Secretary of State’s actions. Where is the creativity in his English baccalaureate? Student choice has been affected by the subject choice in the bac.
	I say again to the Secretary of State that it is time he thought again about the English baccalaureate and allowed more breadth, flexibility and choice so that it caters for the talents of all students? A school system that works for everyone cannot be designed around the requirements of the Russell group. With 103 Members calling for RE at the very least to be added to the baccalaureate, is it not now time for another of the Secretary of State’s famous U-turns?
	The deliverability of Professor Wolf’s vision is also affected by some of the Secretary of State’s actions in other areas. Professor Wolf rightly stresses the importance of a quality careers service to inform young people about their options—surely even more important in a world where young people are struggling to make their way. Yet as we speak, the careers service in England is simply melting away. We welcome the vision of an all-age careers service, but we ask again today: where is the long-promised transition plan to deliver it? That is yet another example of the Secretary of State’s trademark incompetence.
	Given that careers advisers are being made redundant now, how will the Secretary of State secure the quality of service that Professor Wolf demands? Yesterday, we sought to amend his Bill to give young people a guarantee of face-to-face guidance in our schools. At a time when youth unemployment is at a record high and access to further and higher education is becoming more difficult, is not the web and telephony-based service proposed by the Government completely inadequate to the scale of the task?
	The Government mouth platitudes about social mobility, as the Secretary of State did today, but they are systematically kicking away the ladders of support that help young people to get on in life. More young people in further education colleges on vocational courses are receiving education maintenance allowance than those in school sixth-form colleges, and they need that money to buy equipment for their courses. Will not the scrapping of the EMA hit those young people disproportionately hard, and, again, make Professor Wolf’s vision hard to deliver? Colleges and students are four months away from the start of the academic year, and are still none the wiser about what they will receive under the Secretary of State’s replacement scheme. Not for the first time, he has taken a successful policy and turned it into a shambles. Is it not time to listen to no less an organisation than the OECD, and reinstate the EMA scheme? Without it, how will the Secretary of State’s commitment to raising the school leaving age become a reality?
	Professor Wolf’s report raises issues that go to the heart of the need to secure the prosperity of our country and a decent future for our young people, but by their actions the Government are taking hope away from our
	young people. Unless they change course quickly—on curriculum reform, the careers service, EMA and university fees—the Government’s legacy will be a lost generation of young people.

Michael Gove: I thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his response, and welcome him back to the Dispatch Box, on day release from his other job as Labour’s election co-ordinator. May I say how much we on the Government Benches are enjoying the progress he is making in that job? From Dartford and Dover to Aberconwy and Pembrokeshire, from North Lincolnshire to Southampton, Conservative councillors who won last Thursday are delighted with the progress he is making, and so are we. The longer he stays in that role, the happier all of us will be.
	May I also welcome the fact that, when the right hon. Gentleman returned to his part-time role as shadow Education Secretary, he found time to endorse many of our recommendations? I welcome the support he has given to our aims of improving numeracy and literacy and ensuring that students over the age of 16 who have not secured GCSE passes in English and maths have an opportunity to acquire appropriate qualifications in those subjects.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked a good question about multiple measures and the importance of ensuring that we do not create an accountability system that is too complex, but as he himself acknowledged and as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, there must be a golden mean between having so many targets that teachers are pulled in different directions, and having only one target that distorts the performance of all schools. I believe that the balanced basket of accountability targets that we are introducing reflects what teachers believe—namely, that all students of all abilities need to have their achievements recognised, that the autonomy should be over how schools teach and how the school day is organised, and that in return for greater autonomy there should be sharper accountability.
	Talking of sharper accountability, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the English baccalaureate. He seemed to suggest—or, at least, seemed to want to lead the House to believe—that Professor Wolf was unhappy with it. On Saturday 12 March Professor Wolf wrote in The Guardian:
	“Andy Burnham… is quoted as saying”
	that she had said there was
	“a ‘serious risk’ that the English bac will lead to schools ‘simply ignoring’ less academically able students. This misrepresents what I said.”
	She also wrote:
	“For the record, may I also note that the English bac subjects would normally absorb less than 80% of a teaching week. Both it and many other ‘academic’ clusters are therefore perfectly compatible with my recommendations for curriculum balance for 14 to 16-year-olds.”
	Professor Wolf deserves better than to be traduced in that way by the right hon. Gentleman.
	The right hon. Gentleman also referred to careers advice. Let me politely point out to him that the person appointed to lead on social mobility for the previous
	Government, Alan Milburn, said that we should move away from the failed connection system and adopt a new approach, giving
	“Schools and colleges… direct responsibility for providing information, advice and guidance”.
	Moreover, Professor Alison Wolf pointed out in evidence to the Select Committee that the “problem with careers guidance” had been the model that the right hon. Gentleman prefers: a model that was stuck in the past, with “one poor teacher” being expected to know about everything. That, she said, had been supplanted by a more modern measure enabling skilled careers advisers and “proper, online, updated information” to provide students with the right answers.
	I am afraid that, not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has been found out in his old Labour ways. He has been in office for 200 days. During that time he said that our academies programme would be divisive, but more than 1,000 great teachers have embraced it. He said that free schools would generate poverty and dislocation, but the best and brightest in Labour are now embracing their radical appeal. Today he has said that the coalition Government have got it wrong on vocational education. Given his record, I am delighted to find the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite me today.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I am particularly pleased about the apprenticeships. The fact that young people in my constituency are now able to apply directly to Rolls-Royce and Toyota for apprenticeships is a major step forward.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having had an opportunity to visit Rolls-Royce just over a month ago, I can confirm that the apprenticeships it offers are highly sought after, and that students from all over Derbyshire and the east and west midlands recognise that it is precisely that kind of high-quality private sector apprenticeship that we should facilitate.

Barry Sheerman: Like many others, I gave evidence to the Wolf inquiry. I approve of much of the report and consider it to be a breath of fresh air, but I remind the Secretary of State that he made his statement on a day on which we heard that a million young people are unemployed. We know that only 6% of kids aged between 16 and 18 obtain apprenticeships, and only 36% go on to higher education. Given the tremendous challenge posed by the participation rate moving to 17 and then 18, may we have Wolf mark 2, 3 and 4?

Michael Gove: As ever, the hon. Gentleman shows why he was seen as such a distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee. He is right to point out that the record of the last 13 years is not nearly as bright or as promising as Opposition Front Benchers would have us believe, and to suggest that we need more work from Professor Wolf and others to ensure that our vocational and academic education systems keep in touch with the 21st century. That is why I am so delighted that Professor Wolf will remain an adviser to the Government to ensure the implementation of the report and, indeed, the succeeding measures that we hope to take.

Graham Stuart: Professor Wolf might not have thought that the English baccalaureate on its own could distort and harm outcomes for the poorest in our schools, but I have to say that the Chairman of the Select Committee feels that it could. However, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said today about building a balanced score card. Can we work to create a consensus across the House that what we need is an assessment and accountability framework that gives equal weight to the progress of every child? We do not want too complicated a set of targets, but we need a system that works, allowing schools to get on with it and deliver for everyone.

Michael Gove: That is a very good point. It is rather a shame that the view of some Labour Members—which is not shared by my hon. Friend—is that working-class children cannot achieve academic excellence. [Interruption.] I am afraid that that is the view of Opposition Front Benchers. Labour Members therefore feel that this is somehow an unfair and elitist measure, but I think that it is an aspirational measure. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to ensure that all the abilities of all children are recognised, whatever their background. Labour Members need to return to the aspirational educational model that we saw under Lord Adonis, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and the former right hon. Member for Sedgefield, which was sadly abandoned three years ago.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome Professor Wolf’s report, which has also been welcomed by the Association of Colleges. I note two points in particular: the suggestion that maths and English education should be continued for youngsters over the age of 16 who are on vocational courses and who did not achieve grade C at GCSE, and the suggestion that vocational studies in schools should be limited to 20% of the curriculum, with 80% devoted to traditional subjects. Will the Secretary of State make those statutory requirements, or will they have only advisory status?

Michael Gove: On the continuation of the study of maths and English after the age of 16, we will, in the context of raising the participation age, explore legislative and other options to ensure that all children have the opportunity to follow those paths,. On the related question of the 80:20 split, Professor Wolf says that to ensure the maximum chance of progressing along academic and vocational pathways, there should be an academic core up to the age of 16. She also argues that it is a good thing for all students to experience some practical learning. That is not prescriptive; it is a guide, and one of the points she makes is that university technical colleges, which have a longer school day and school week, can have a full academic core as well as a significant additional layer of practical learning on top.

Jonathan Lord: Before coming to the Chamber today, I addressed a business breakfast on the edge of my right hon. Friend’s constituency and mine. Is he as concerned as I am about the finding in the CBI survey published this week that 40% of firms are not satisfied with the basic literacy of school and college leavers and that more than a third are not satisfied with
	basic levels of numeracy? Does he believe that the measures he has announced today will help to reverse that sad state of affairs?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He speaks very effectively for the businessmen of Surrey, who are doing so much to provide opportunities for young people, and I have to say that he is absolutely right: one of the major complaints from employers is that there are bright, intelligent, get-up-and-go young people who, sadly, have left the school system without the numeracy and literacy required to fit into almost any modern role. There is no more important task for this Government than to get those basics right, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leigh for acknowledging that in the first part of his response.

Dave Watts: May I test the Secretary of State’s commitment to poorer students? Will he give a guarantee today that poor students in St Helens will get more money and support than under the old system?

Michael Gove: Yes.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a sign of the last Government’s failure to improve education that more than 250,000 children left school last year without a C grade in GCSE maths and English?

Mr Speaker: Order. The short answer is no, and let me repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have already had reason to say to him several times: questions must be about the policy of the current Government. I have made that point to him before, and he has breached the requirement several times. He will not do so again.

Derek Twigg: I want to follow on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts). Riverside college is a really good college in my constituency, but it has faced major funding cuts from the Secretary of State’s Government. Given that he has just guaranteed increased funding for students in St Helens, will he also give the same guarantee to students in my constituency of Halton?

Michael Gove: As soon as word gets out that we are engaging in one-to-one negotiations across the green Benches, I expect that the Chamber will rapidly fill up, even though there is a one-line Whip. I would repeat the point I made to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) to all Members: thanks to the coalition Government’s commitment to the pupil premium and to our reforms of 16-to-19 learning, the most disadvantaged students will receive more money. That is all thanks to our commitment to social justice.

Rob Wilson: May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and place on record my thanks to Professor Wolf for her excellent report? Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the delivery of these very important reforms? In particular, has he looked closely at the US community college
	system, which has been extremely successful in delivering these kinds of reforms to very hard-to-reach young people?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend has campaigned for a better deal for poorer students ever since he first came to this House, and I agree that we must look at international models of good practice. The university technical colleges that this Government are committed to introducing provide a new model that caters for students of different aptitudes, and I believe we can learn a lot from some of the best practice in the United States.

Gavin Shuker: The Secretary of State said in his statement that the purpose of his radical reform programme was to make “opportunity more equal”. Does he accept, however, that it is difficult to realise that aim while local authorities are not being treated equally? For example, in my local authority of Luton there are 3.1 pupils per family, compared with the English average of 1.9. Does the Secretary of State agree that, for Professor Wolf’s review recommendations to be successful, he must fund the measures properly?

Michael Gove: I am not sure what levers I have at my disposal to ensure that other parts of the country can enjoy the same family size as Luton is blessed with. On the broader point of making sure there is funding for Luton, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Luton is blessed with many excellent schools, such as Denbigh high school, which Dame Yasmin Bevan leads, and the Barnfield group of academies and studio schools. I look forward to visiting Luton shortly, when I will have an opportunity to talk to head teachers there. I hope I might also have an opportunity to talk to the hon. Gentleman about what more we can do to help continue the success stories in his constituency.

Edward Timpson: De Vere catering academy in my constituency offers dozens of aspiring young people the opportunity of a high-quality, employer-led apprenticeship. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what is being done to ease the path for other employers to follow its lead?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is cross-party commitment to apprenticeships. Unfortunately, however, while they are well intentioned and justifiable in themselves, some of the bureaucracy surrounding the way in which the Skills Funding Agency has supported apprenticeships, some of the requirements that have been placed on apprenticeship frameworks, and some recording responsibilities of employers in respect of the individual learning record, have together added up to a significant burden that means that many small and medium-sized enterprises in particular find it expensive or burdensome to take on an apprentice. My hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills are taking forward a programme to reduce that bureaucracy, and I hope it will be welcomed on both sides of the House.

Fiona Mactaggart: As the Secretary of State is well aware, modern business needs people who can make, do, create and invent things, as well as
	people who can analyse things, and even if Professor Wolf is right that her recommendations are compatible with the English bac if 20% of the curriculum is made available for those kinds of skills to be developed, the Secretary of State knows—as we all do—that, in practice, this is not happening in some schools. Will he therefore consider the following request, which I have made before: that he add to the English bac at least one qualification that is about making, creating or doing, such as in electrical engineering or making music?

Michael Gove: I take on board the hon. Lady’s point. I think the intention behind her request is admirable, and it is reflected in what Professor Wolf says. However, it would be wrong for me to prescribe what additional qualification or course might be appropriate to encourage people to acquire those practical skills. One of the points Professor Wolf makes is that there are many courses of study, or pursuits at school or beyond, that might not necessarily lead specifically to a qualification but can provide people with the skills required. It is crucial that we support qualifications that are robust and, where possible, invest in developing them to reflect what employers need, but we must also ensure flexibility and autonomy so that schools can do the right thing for their students.

Gavin Barwell: I particularly warmly welcome the announcement that 16 to 18-year-olds who do not achieve a C grade in English or maths will continue to study those subjects. Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), how quickly will the Government be able to take action, so that we can end the practice under the previous Government of hundreds of thousands of children leaving school without the requisite qualifications?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend reminds us of the dreadful fact that only about 50% of students manage to leave state schools with five good GCSEs including English and maths. That means that hundreds of thousands of young people simply do not have the opportunity to move on to the jobs they deserve.
	I see that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) is present. One of the great things he did when he was an FE college principal was develop courses that ensured that students could very quickly resit GCSE English and maths, or follow courses that would lead them, in due course, to acquiring a broadly comparable level of literacy and numeracy. I want to work with great FE principals, as he once was, to ensure we get the right courses for the right students.

Elizabeth Truss: I wholeheartedly support the move to abolish equivalence for low-quality qualifications, which has effectively been a mis-selling scandal to young people for more than 10 years now. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that low quality GCSEs and A-levels are also not counted in our league tables?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend has been a fantastic campaigner for rigour in state education, and she is right that, as Professor Wolf points out, many qualifications were mis-sold to students on the basis that they would lead to progression. The right hon. Member for Leigh talked about students being coerced into courses that
	were not appropriate for them. We know that employers and universities welcome the courses in the English baccalaureate, but some of the courses that had an inflated value in league tables in the past, under the Government of whom he was a part, were not valued by employers or by higher or further education institutions.
	My hon. Friend also made a point about GCSEs and A-levels. We are working with Ofqual to make sure that every GCSE awarding body is appropriately rigorous, and we will work with universities to ensure that A-levels are even stronger.

Graham Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that focusing narrowly on one measure of school performance, particularly five A* to C grades for GCSE—I personally insist on those including maths and English—creates perverse incentives for schools and encourages them to focus on borderline C and D grade students to the detriment of other students?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Ultimately there will never be a single perfect accountability measure. The one he mentioned on floor standards has helped us to raise attainment in schools, but one measure does not fit all. I therefore welcome his support for developing a more sophisticated way of analysing attainment, so that students with lower ability but real commitment can be recognised, and in particular so that schools that take students with low levels of previous attainment and transform their outlooks can be properly recognised and applauded.

Neil Carmichael: I welcome Professor Wolf’s report and the Government’s response. I was on the Education Select Committee that discussed the baccalaureate and was left in no doubt that Professor Wolf thought it was consistent with her interest in ensuring a proper academic basis to the measurement of pupils’ performance. Does the Secretary of State agree that the baccalaureate will enable pupils to make sensible, informed choices and give them the confidence to implement those decisions when opportunities arise?

Michael Gove: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Hon. Members on both sides of the House listened attentively to his question. We should pay particularly close attention to him, given the role he has played in further education. We know—every nation knows—that if students can reach a solid academic level by the age of 16, they will be in a strong position to choose which academic and vocational pathways they can move between later. Having a solid academic core creates no tension. In fact, it is an absolute precondition to success in vocational education.

Andrew Stephenson: Over the past year, I have visited numerous manufacturing and engineering firms across Pendle that are keen to expand and recruit more, where managers have told me that they are not satisfied with the levels of literacy and numeracy among job applicants. Does my right hon. Friend believe that today’s proposals, along with some of the other measures outlined by the Government—for instance, for university technical colleges—will help to address this problem?

Michael Gove: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that east Lancashire has no better champion, and in particular that he speaks up effectively for young people and businesses in his constituency. We can help by ensuring that there are the opportunities for those young people who in the past might not have had an education fit for their talents to succeed in English, maths and the world of work.

Personal Statement

David Laws: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this early opportunity to respond to the Standards and Privileges Committee report on my expenses. I am also grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and his staff for their thorough and professional handling of this inquiry following my self-referral. The inquiry has found that I broke a number of important rules. I take complete and personal responsibility for the mistakes I made, and apologise without reservation to the House and my constituents.
	The commissioner found that there was a conflict between my personal interest in privacy and the public interest in openness and accountability. He concluded that I should have immediately resolved that conflict in the public interest, and I agree with that judgment. I have made it clear since this matter first became public that my motivation was solely to protect my privacy, and not to benefit in any way from the expenses system, and I am pleased that the commissioner has clearly supported my view about my motivation and that he has stated that there is no evidence that I made my claims with the intention of benefiting myself or those close to me. The commissioner has also concluded that if I had kept to the rules, including by correctly designating my main home, my total expense claims would have been considerably higher than they were. This is not, as the commissioner made clear, an adequate justification for breaking the rules, but it demonstrates that there was no adverse consequence for the taxpayer.
	This last year has been a difficult one for me, and I am grateful for all the support I have received, particularly from my constituents in Yeovil, who have been extremely generous in their understanding, tolerance and encouragement. Each of us should be our own sternest critic. Everyone in this place wants to see the reputation of the House restored after the past few disastrous years. If by my actions I have contributed to further undermining the House’s reputation, I can only apologise without reservation.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Points of Order

Dave Watts: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to my earlier question, could you provide me with some advice? Is it in order for a Minister to ask his Department not to provide him with information to avoid having to pass that information on to an MP seeking to clarify something that affects his constituency?

Mr Speaker: The short answer is that Ministers are responsible both for how they provide information, and for what information is, or is not, available to them. However, the hon. Gentleman has registered his point forcefully on the record.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to register my disappointment that the House has been denied the opportunity to thank and congratulate the Prime Minister on his reported decision to seek the withdrawal of 450 British troops from Afghanistan. That decision could be taken this month. It clearly suggests, first, a withdrawal from the Government’s over-optimism and, secondly, a determination to recognise the futility of the present operation and to bring our soldiers home to the safety of our shores.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman’s guileful if slightly inappropriate use of the point of order procedure to register his political point is further evidence of why he is the acclaimed author of a tome entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[27th Allotted Day]

Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Adam Afriyie: I beg to move,
	That it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances established under Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members’ Allowances) that it review the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and make recommendations, giving due consideration to ensuring:
	(a) value for money for taxpayers;
	(b) accountability;
	(c) public confidence in Parliament;
	(d) the ability of Members to fulfil their duties effectively;
	(e) fairness for less well-off Members and those with families; and
	(f) that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.
	I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support in crafting today’s motion and ensuring that it was tabled and supported. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for supporting Back Benchers in having their voices heard in this place, and the Leader of the House for his robust defence of the functions of the House and for making it known to the external bodies that deal with our expenses that we are keen for the system not to impede the work that MPs do on behalf of their constituents.
	None of us wants to be discussing expenses, and it is sad that we have to, but given that the expenses system has caused so much trouble over the years, and the current expenses regime continues to raise concerns for many Members and for democracy at large, it is our duty at least to consider a measured, sensible and calm way forward in which we can review the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to consider whether it is achieving the goals set for it. I want to make clear, therefore, what we are aiming to do today. The motion is about considering ways of cutting the cost of Parliament to taxpayers in the long term, and about giving MPs’ time back to their constituents, rather than allowing them to be waylaid by bureaucracy beyond what is necessary for accountability. It is also about reviewing whether Parliament can be a place open to people from all backgrounds, including less well-off ones. Irrespective of our own personal positions—in many cases—it is important that Parliament does not become a place where only wealthy people can serve and thrive without damage to their public reputation.
	The motion is part of the process of cleaning up our politics. It is right that this debate should be held in Back-Bench time, because the terms and conditions of Members of Parliament in serving their constituents and doing their duty within a democracy are rightly for this place to determine rather than for the Government to take the lead on—unless, of course, the taxpayers’ purse is affected. Then the Government must take a very robust position.
	Let us be clear: it is Parliament that holds Government and the Executive to account, not vice versa. That is why I want to thank the Chairman of the Backbench
	Business Committee, the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and others for recognising that this is an issue that should really be raised, as it is being, in Back-Bench time.
	Today’s motion says that MPs take their responsibilities seriously. What does it do? It instructs an existing Committee to review the Parliament Standards Act 2009, as amended in 2010. It not only instructs the Committee to review the Act, but asks it to make recommendations to the House about any changes that it thinks might need to take place, giving due consideration to the important issues about which we are all concerned, such as accountability.

Brian H Donohoe: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all the hard work that he has undertaken over many months on this very important issue. There is now a person in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority called the compliance officer, and as a consequence of my having a very small logo on my website—a tiny little thing with “Labour” on it—I received two recorded delivery letters and was summonsed to respond within a certain time. When I phoned, I asked why they did not just lift the phone to me and say, “Look, this is against the rules. Why don’t you remove it?” It was the way that it was done. The bureaucracy involved in that process needs to be considered, along with many other things.

Adam Afriyie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. I noticed just the other day that 40 hon. Members have been reported and may well be investigated for some very minor and seemingly almost irrelevant matters. I have seen newspaper coverage of Members’ being criticised for claiming £3 here and £4 there. It seems to me that the public standing of this place is not necessarily enhanced by some of the practices in place at the moment, and that is why we need calmly to take a step back and review the situation. We need to review the 2009 Act and ask whether it is improving and restoring the integrity of Parliament and its hon. Members through its operation.
	Clearly, some disgraceful acts happened in the past and no one is condoning that. We needed to make changes and I welcome the progress that has been made, but we must now calmly review the Act, its operation and the current arrangements.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, but is it not a fact that the vast majority of Members in this House never did anything wrong and never broke any rules—I am talking about more than 600 of us—but have been rewarded by having our job of serving our constituents and checking on the Executive made much more difficult? My job here is to serve my constituents and call the Executive to account, and I am finding it much more difficult to do that under the new rules.

Adam Afriyie: That is the observation of many Members, I think. I have to say—I hope I will not get a hiss for this—that the media and those who really understand how this place works are beginning to recognise just how difficult it is becoming for Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who want to go about their
	duties of holding the Executive to account, representing their constituents and picking up issues, but they are constantly being harangued over issues regarding which, one might argue, they should not necessarily be under pressure.
	I shall not go through the litany of the crimes of the current system, much as I would love to. Anybody reasonable and anybody who knows how this place operates—the people who voted us into this place last May clearly recognised that the people being elected here were people who wanted to serve—will know that the overwhelming majority of Members are desperate just to get on with their job and to perform the duties for which they were elected. I hope that this motion is carried today so that we can have a calm look at whether the 2009 Act is performing the function that, with all the good intentions and good motivation in the world, it was intended to achieve.
	My heart goes out to the new Members who came in in 2005. Many were elected on a ticket saying that they abhorred the expenses crisis, and they were right to campaign on that ticket—

Bob Stewart: It was 2010.

Adam Afriyie: That is right; I meant the 2010 intake. My heart goes out to them, because they have been as meticulous and careful as they can not to overclaim and not to make erroneous claims; I know this because I know many of them personally. In fact, 92% of people here are not claiming what they are entitled to claim, just so they can be as careful as possible, yet every eight weeks their names are run through the press, which presents any claim at all as being in some way illegitimate. I do not entirely blame the press for that. In some ways, it might be the workings of the 2009 Act that are perpetuating that perception, which in the majority of cases is not a reality.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful and considered speech. Does he agree that there is now a worry that IPSA is straying into areas where it was never intended to go? For example, two colleagues who have recently been injured had great difficulty in getting IPSA to allow them to claim taxis to come to the House, although they were not allowed to use public transport. At one point, a member of IPSA asked them why they were going to work. We cannot have people who are there to regulate expenses deciding when Members of Parliament should or should not be able to come to the House.

Adam Afriyie: The hon. Lady raises a key point that is at the heart of our democracy. In a parliamentary democracy, Members are elected in order to make or change the laws. Parliament is sovereign in our nation within the way that our unwritten constitution works. One has to ask whether it is right for an external body to be able to determine the way in which Members of Parliament, who are elected by the public, do their work. It is not just a question of the level of remuneration, as we understand that and accept the need for independence. I think most people are comfortable with that. If such a body determines the way in which we do our work, however, tough questions must be asked about the arrangements. I hope that as the Committee carries out the review some of these questions will be raised.
	There is an opportunity for the Committee calmly to consider not only the current difficulties—the level of accountability and whether it is full enough, whether receipts need to be published and all those detailed issues that affect us on a day-to-day basis—but the constitutional position. It might also consider some of the issues to do with tidying up the omissions and other small errors that we made in our haste as we rushed to make the changes, which we were right to do.

David Nuttall: I welcome the establishment of the Committee. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether the membership of the Committee has been determined yet, and if it has not, whether he would be prepared to serve on it? It seems to me that he would be an ideal candidate.

Adam Afriyie: My interest in this issue has been on the public record for many years, and I would be very happy to play a part in any Committee established for this purpose, but naturally such a Committee should have no special privileges. I hope that it would be set up in the same way as other Committees are established, but of course I am interested in this issue and would like to do my best to try to assist Parliament and hon. Members of all persuasions in doing their jobs without unnecessary obstacles being placed in the way.
	Let me make some quick observations on some of the stresses and strains. I make these observations not necessarily to make judgments at this moment but simply to flag up some of the areas that cause concern, and which any future review might wish to consider. The first such area is cost. One of the mandates for the Committee is that it must have due regard to the need for value for money for the taxpayer. The budget for IPSA seems quite high, and was certainly significantly higher in the first year than that for the previous year’s arrangements. That is something we need to look at. Those costs might be appropriately high; it might be right that it is very expensive to operate what should be a relatively simple system, but any review must look into that.
	Secondly, we have to consider the impact that the 2009 Act is having on the time that MPs have available to perform their duties. There is no doubt, from my own experience and that of hon. Members who were here before 2010, that the level and work load associated with the expenses systems and such matters have escalated enormously. Literally days are taken away from constituents as the time of Members and their staff is taken up. There is an enormous level of stress associated with the IPSA system, and we need to take a calm look at the impact that is having on our democracy and on Members’ ability to represent their constituents.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful speech. Like many Members in Wales, I have joint offices with Assembly Members and I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about stress. The stress for staff of dealing with expenses for Westminster is far higher than the stress of dealing with expenses for the devolved Administrations. Does he think IPSA should look at the systems in Scotland and Wales and see whether we could adopt a similar system?

Adam Afriyie: From my observations of the system in Scotland in particular, and the system in Wales, I think there are certainly some virtues in the way they operate. I have also conducted a review of 27 different systems around the world, including those in Canada, Denmark, some of the Scandinavian countries and particularly Germany, and it is clear that they take a very different view of how expenses and remuneration systems should operate for members of their Parliaments.
	That was not a scientific review, but there were certainly some very clear patterns. In Germany they have said it would be utterly ridiculous to lumber the taxpayer with the cost of receipting tiny claims, because the cost would be disproportionate to the benefit to the taxpayer. That is something that a review would need to consider, but I do not wish to pre-empt where it might go. It would need to take evidence and take a very careful look at comparisons from around the world. One or two other nations have what are called sessional indemnities and different, very simple arrangements for office accommodation and housing for their members. That is something we need to look at.
	A key area that I hope the review will look into is the situation of Members who are not of independent means—those who do not have large outside incomes, trust funds or inherited wealth, and those who did not have incredibly successful businesses or professional careers before arriving here. In many ways, I think we have to consider whether the expenses system is penalising such Members for not being wealthy. There is a danger that if, as I have said, 92% of Members are not claiming what they are entitled to claim, this place will become a place only for those who are wealthy.
	The motion simply asks the Committee to conduct a review of the 2009 Act. I hope there will not be dissent today. This issue of expenses is incendiary, but it is our duty in this place to act without fear or favour in the interests of democracy, our constituents and the taxpayer. A calm, methodical review of the 2009 Act is a very important step, and is part of the process.

Andrew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is critical that the House should uphold the fundamental importance of independence in these matters, which is absolutely crucial to restoring public confidence after all the scandals?

Adam Afriyie: It is my personal view, and that of many Members, that it would be a very strange day if we were to start determining our pay or rations once again. I do not think that anyone wants to head in that direction, and I have not heard of many people wanting to do so. The independence of the body setting the level of remuneration is a good thing. Whatever any review sets out to do, it must ensure that that independence is maintained. Indeed, it could even be enhanced. With those remarks, I urge Members to support the motion. Let us have a calm and sensible review of where we are.

Pete Wishart: I want to paint a picture of two different parliamentary expenses schemes. One is bureaucratic, difficult to understand and administer, expensive to run and universally loathed by those whom it seeks to serve. The other is relatively inexpensive, easy to understand and universally
	accepted by those whom it seeks to serve. It might surprise some to know that both those schemes currently exist in the UK. The first is our good friend IPSA, and the second is the scheme that operates in Scotland without fuss, issues or any difficulty whatever.
	A year on from IPSA’s creation, we are here again discussing its many and manifest failures, while the system in Scotland works without any issues or difficulty. No one cares to hear about it, and even the press are bored with it. They lost interest in the tea and biscuits stories years ago and they have gone on to other things, but it was not always like that in Scotland. In the early days of the Scottish Parliament there were a number of alarming stories, but nothing on the scale of what happened in this House. Initially, the Scottish Parliament more or less copied in full the parliamentary scheme from this place, but then there were difficulties, so it patiently, constructively and conscientiously fashioned a new system, which has worked. That system has the support of MSPs and the public, who know it is fair and transparent, and the press no longer have any particular interest in it.
	One way of illustrating the difference between the two systems is by looking at them through the eyes of the staff who have the misery of dealing with them on our behalf. I share an office with a Member of the Scottish Parliament. We share staff and our office manager looks after our office issues for us jointly, so she is responsible for paying all the bills and making sure that all the offices work effectively. When she does the expenses work for the MSP, it is over in minutes: the direct debit for office supplies—done; a few receipts for the travel required—finished. But then we almost hear her groan of anguish when it is time to turn to the MP’s expenses. With a heavy heart, she draws down the IPSA website again and the hours of misery start. Is it the four hours to be spent on the travel reconciliations for last month, or the trying to sit through the quadruplicate reconciliation that IPSA requires for travel that causes the misery? Is it the endless phone calls to IPSA Towers, trying to understand and decipher the new, panicky rewrite of some of the rules? Or is it the stress of possibly getting a claim wrong—of something going into the wrong column or category and the claim being returned or, worse, refused and opened up for the ritual press humiliation that comes when those expenses are published every two months?

David Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having an IPSA-type body is a good thing for MPs, but that it is so over-bureaucratic that it stifles what we are here to do? Speaking from personal experience, I think that if it were not for Philip from IPSA having come around and helped out many of the Members who are present today, we would all be in a world of pain.

Pete Wishart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which gives me the opportunity to say that there is nothing wrong with the staff who work for IPSA, most of whom are courteous and very helpful. They do all they can to try to resolve some of the difficulties and issues that confront us and our staff day in, day out. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the
	problem is the mind-numbing bureaucracy of the thing. I do not want my staff sitting there on the phone to IPSA Towers. I do not want them wading through the quadruplicate reconciliations that are required. I want them to work to help my constituents; that is what they are there to do. Why are they wasting their precious time, which should be spent on my constituents, on that mind-numbing useless bureaucracy? It is time that we addressed that question properly.
	The Scottish system and IPSA have one thing in common—one that we all want to see: transparency. That is what it should be about; transparency is the key to the way forward. The system used by the Scottish Parliament is even better, because receipts are put on each MSP’s website and are available at the click of a mouse, so we achieve transparency without the massive difficulties caused by the bureaucracy of filling in all those forms.
	IPSA has had a chance to try to resolve those issues. Unfortunately, I missed the debate secured by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) before Christmas. I do not think that I have yet congratulated him on securing this debate, and on his diligence in pursuing the issue. After the first debate, IPSA was charged with the task of getting some of those difficulties in order. There have been some improvements, which we are all prepared to welcome, but the culture and the institution are still very much in place. There has not been a cultural shift in the way in which IPSA deals with MPs’ expenses, so we are right to try to pursue the issue along the lines that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to suggest. Let us see if we can look at the 2009 Act again to try to get something different.
	We do not need to look too far afield, although I would be fascinated to learn about other international examples. We need look only 500 miles up the road to find a system that functions perfectly well, supported by those whom it serves and by the public, and without any issue or interest from the press whatsoever. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we just need to strap a Caledonian one on to the House and get on with it. That is what we should do now, as we have an opportunity to try to resolve this. When the issue of expenses came before the House a couple of years ago, we strongly suggested that people should take a look at the Scottish system. That proposal was rejected in favour of IPSA, and the House probably realises that it made a dramatic and drastic mistake in going down that route—but there is still time to try to achieve a change. Let us not do something radically different. Let us just do something that works, and something works just up the road.

Edward Leigh: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on tabling the motion, and on the diligent work that he has done on behalf of Parliament and the taxpayer. I have been asked to chair the MPs’ side of the committee liaising with IPSA, and we have done our honest best in recent months to try to put MPs’ views to IPSA. Our meetings are courteous and lengthy. We have covered the entire ground but, at the end of the day, many of our suggestions are simply not acted on. The motion will provide further impetus to IPSA to listen to Parliament. Everyone accepts that we must have an independent body that sets the overall levels of remuneration, but we
	still have a fantastically bureaucratic system that employs 70 staff and which costs upwards of £6 million just to do the expenses of 650 people. It is an absurdly bureaucratic system that must be reviewed, not for our sake but for the sake of the taxpayer.
	It is perfectly possible to devise a system that can command public confidence and result in a much lower cost to the taxpayer. Our first priority is cutting the cost to the taxpayer, who has to pay for all of this. It is an expensive way of doing things. Secondly, we want to minimise the possibility of fraud and error. As we have seen with social security, one of the best ways to do that is to simplify the system as much as possible. Thirdly—this point was made by my hon. Friend and others—we want to open Parliament up, and ensure that it is an attractive place for people of all types, from all regions, of all levels of income, and all the rest of it, who want to come here.
	I mentioned all regions, because disincentives are built into the current system. For instance, is being a Member of Parliament, with our existing expenses regime and the way in which families are still treated, an attractive option for a lady GP working in Newcastle upon Tyne? I do not think so. We should encourage in particular women with families who want to serve as Members of Parliament, which means that we must have an expenses regime that understands Parliament and the fact that many people who come to the House are not just coming to London for an occasional business trip. It is often a life sentence, as people have to spend half their time in a constituency that may be a long way from London, and the other half in London. Younger Members of Parliament with young families, in particular, want to be with their families, so ultimately we need an expenses regime—we have to keep repeating this—that is not too bureaucratic, which is attractive, minimises fraud and error and cuts the cost to the taxpayer. The present system does not do that.
	We have those meetings in our liaison committee, but we have no power whatsoever. We can make suggestions on all the points that are made to me in e-mails and letters from colleagues, but ultimately we can still be ignored. There has been some progress, particularly on how we run our offices. The way in which IPSA originally tried to set up the expenses regime for MPs’ offices was absurd. It was ludicrously bureaucratic, but we have made progress, and MPs can increasingly use the IPSA debit card to ensure that the money they need to run their offices does not go through their personal bank accounts. The fact that MPs were forced to subsidise their offices from their bank accounts was almost a throwback to the 18th century, when Ministers had to pay for government from their own personal bank accounts. The situation was ridiculous, and we have made progress.
	We have also made progress on travel, but accommodation remains a bugbear. I hope that the motion will be approved today and we can make progress. Let us be quite honest about this. MPs’ accommodation has been the kernel of the problem for the past 30 years. It has proved difficult because successive Governments have not wanted to bite the bullet. My hon. Friend originally tabled another motion for the Order Paper, but I understand that there were Government sensitivities about allowing it to go through. However, it would have maximised pressure on IPSA to reach a reasonable settlement on accommodation.
	What is the way forward? So many of the problems with which we deal in public life are utterly difficult and intractable, as we know when we deal with the NHS, social security and the economy, but there is a simple solution staring us in the face on this issue, and there always has been. Although the old expenses regime was much criticised, when it began it was not an expenses regime but an allowances regime, effectively providing a flat-rate allowance. As long as it remained a flat-rate allowance, it worked. It began to go wrong when it became the expenses regime. The moment that we began to ask MPs to maximise their so-called expenses by submitting receipts, we ensured that sooner or later a Member of Parliament would end up in prison, which is what has happened. If it had remained a flat-rate allowances system, we would not have had all the issues that we have had.
	I cannot prejudge what the Committee will do, but it is worth putting a marker in the sand, because we have made the point continuously in the regular liaison committee meetings with IPSA. People nod their heads, but our points are ignored. I just hope that if the evidence from the new Committee supports my point of view, and if the matter returns to the House, the new Committee will not be ignored. If it makes a sensible proposal that has been worked through for many months, with hearings of witnesses who have expressed their views, and offers a proposal to the House, I hope that at that stage the Government will not try to block it once again, just as successive Governments have always blocked every sensible resolution on the grounds that it is not acceptable to public opinion, they are not ready, and all the other issues. I think that public opinion is ready. All members of the public I talk with say, “Why can’t MPs just be allowed to get on with it? They should be paid a proper salary and left to live their lives.”
	Some people claim that IPSA has made progress, but its latest reforms almost make the situation worse, because it is getting more involved in the family life of MPs. We are paid extra if we have children, and a slightly increased allowance when the children are between certain ages. What happens when the children grow up, which they always do? There are all those sorts of issues. We are going down the same track as our social security system, with more interference in people’s private lives. Frankly, how an MP lives their private life is none of IPSA’s business, nor anyone else’s. All we have to accept is that all MPs have to live some of their lives in London and some of their lives in their constituencies.
	I have always thought, as was said time and again in the liaison committee, that the obvious solution was to build on the old London weighting allowance, which was a flat-rate, taxable allowance. If it is flat-rate and taxable, it is not the business of the Inland Revenue and there is no possibility for fraud or error. I am not suggesting that we can move to such a system immediately, as many MPs have now made arrangements for renting and should be allowed to continue with that very bureaucratic expenses regime, with receipts and all the rest of it, if they wish to do so. However, MPs must have some opportunity to opt out of that bureaucratic system and into a flat-rate, taxable allowance system. Otherwise, we will create perverse incentives. We also said in the committee that the more rules we have, the more perverse incentives there will be. For example, there is a perverse incentive for MPs who have been paying for their second
	homes with mortgages to rent those homes out and then rent themselves a flat, at greater cost to IPSA. How does that help the taxpayer? It is ludicrous.
	I very much hope that the Committee will be set up, take evidence and come back with simple solutions that ultimately protect the taxpayer. That is what we are about. It should also ensure that MPs have the maximum amount of time to hold the Executive to account, which is why we are here. We are not here to have our staff spend hours every week enmeshed in some bureaucratic expenses regime. The only reason for our existence is to hold those people on the Front Bench to account in an independent and satisfactory way. I have to say that IPSA is still not there yet. I hope that, with the Committee being set up, we will finally make progress, cut the cost to the taxpayer and do the job we were elected to do.

Bob Stewart: As one of the youngest Members of the 2010 intake, I remember sitting in the Members’ centre a few days after my election and listening to a young lady—much younger than me, surprisingly—who was speaking on the telephone and trying very hard to arrange accommodation for herself in London. She happened to be a member of the Opposition. Each time she spoke with an estate agent, it was clear that she could not do it, and after two hours she gave up. I quickly soused that—

Charles Walker: Sussed. You souse a herring.

Bob Stewart: Souse a herring—are we not moving on to that debate in a moment?
	I quickly sussed that the expenses system was not working very well. I have spent most of my adult life in public service, but I have also been in business in the private sector. In those jobs, there was a very clear principle that if one spent money doing one’s job, one should be properly recompensed. It was simple and effective. It seems to me that IPSA makes difficulties when it should not do so. I am lucky, because my constituency is close to Westminster and I can travel home each night—22 minutes from Victoria station to Shortlands—except when we have an absurdly lengthy, late-night sitting, when I am told I am allowed to go to a hotel. Members should rest assured that on such occasions I do not cost the taxpayer any money, because I get out my army camp bed and kip in my office, illegally. It is a damn sight easier that trying to check into a hotel at 12.30 at night.

Helen Jones: Especially on what IPSA allows.

Bob Stewart: Exactly.
	It is clear that IPSA puts colleagues off claiming a lot. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) noted that 92% of Members do not claim what they are entitled to, which I think is pretty dreadful. If they do not claim it, that means they are paying for it from their salaries, and we are not that well paid, considering some of the commitments that we are not allowed to claim for.
	I understood the intricacies of Balkan politics when I was the British commander of forces there much better than I understand the intricacies of trying to get a claim from IPSA. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a parliamentary hero for what he is trying to do. His determination is in the highest traditions of this House. We need a simple, fair and honest system that is cheaper for the taxpayer—if that is possible—and allows us to do our jobs properly. I fully support the need to review the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. I am not sure that IPSA should go, but I am sure that the system should be reviewed as soon as possible.

John Mann: My constituency is one of the furthest from the sea, so the next debate on fisheries has no real relevance for jobs there—we merely eat the product—but I put it to the House that that debate is of far more consequence to my constituents than wasting parliamentary time on the self-indulgent obsession of some MPs with the expenses system, which, along with pay, should be determined by an independent body away from this House. That is what should remain.

David Nuttall: I, too, will not detain the House for long. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that there are many other things we could be discussing, but we must not lose sight of the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are forced, as a result of the overly bureaucratic IPSA system, to spend hours and hours dealing with something that should be relatively straightforward.
	Before becoming a Member, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), was in private practice, and my organisation had an expenses system that was simple, clear and straightforward. If someone paid something out of their own pocket for which they needed reimbursement, they produced the receipt, took it to the cashiers at the accounts department, and they checked that it was in order and paid a cheque in recompense.
	I appreciate that the affairs of Members are far more complicated than that, but in essence the procedure ought to be fairly simple, yet it is difficult to conceive of a more complicated system than our current one. I trust that when the existing Committee is re-established, the membership will find time to look at all aspects of the expenses scheme but, in particular, two matters that I think are of specific concern.
	First, no distinction seems to be drawn between expenses of a capital and of a revenue nature. The revision has addressed that to an extent by providing a new allowance for new Members, and that is great for Members who are elected in the future or as a result of a by-election, but the new scheme will be of no benefit to Members elected, like myself, in the 2010 general election, many of whom face having to purchase capital items out of budgets that were set for revenue.
	That leads me to my second point, the publication of expenses figures on an eight-weekly basis. This provides a constant feed of information for the newspapers, which not surprisingly then use it to form league tables. Again, not surprisingly, if someone has paid a large
	amount out in that eight-week period, they will go straight to the top of the league table. It will be all over the newspapers that they are “Top of the league table,” yet they will have done nothing wrong. In fact, over the whole year their expenses may well come bottom of the table, but people will remember and focus on the fact the Member was top for that period.
	We are not comparing like with like if we issue figures for such a short period, so I hope that when the Committee is re-established, it will find time to look at those two matters.

Hilary Benn: I welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has given us—I, like others, think he made a very thoughtful speech—to assess what progress has been made in addressing the concerns that were last debated here in December.
	Like the hon. Gentleman, I strongly support an independent and a transparent system, because publication is the best safeguard and there can be no going back on that at all. I know that that view is shared across the House, but I do share the feeling of Members that, despite the outcome of the recent review and the progress that we have made, which I want to touch on, dealing with IPSA takes up far too much time. Time, whether of Members or our staff, has an opportunity cost, and that means we have less time to do our job.
	First, we ought to recognise that setting up IPSA was a very big task. Parliament asked for it to be done in a very short space of time, and Professor Sir Ian Kennedy and his senior colleagues, who have been unfailingly generous in the time they have given to listen to us, himself acknowledges that IPSA did not get everything right. I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who said that IPSA staff continue to be unfailingly courteous and as helpful as they possibly can be in trying to assist us, but the concerns that bring us back here today are not about them but the system itself.
	I said in December that if we asked Members, “Is IPSA helping you to do your job?”, we would find that the answer was overwhelmingly no. That was certainly reflected in the survey of parliamentary Labour party members that we undertook in submitting evidence to the review, and frankly that ought to be the test. We should not be spending any more time than is necessary on discussing the matter, particularly when it ought to be a relatively simple task.
	The issue is about making sure that we as Members have the means that we need to do the job. “Expenses” is a terrible misnomer, because it is about the means to do the job. They include staff, loyal and incredibly hard-working, who support us in our work and without whom we could not manage; an office; paying the telephone, electricity and stationery bills; the travel costs between Westminster and our constituencies; and, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) rightly said, the cost of having to live and to work in two places, which is in the nature of the job of being a Member of Parliament.
	On the review, we should acknowledge the progress that was made on, for example, support for MPs with family responsibilities—in relation both to travel and to accommodation; a start-up budget for new MPs, learning from the experience that our new colleagues faced a
	year ago; the definition of London; and the merging of the budgets for constituency office rental and for general office costs.
	There has been an increase in the staffing budget, although it still does not take account of the costs of the pension contribution that was passed on to MPs’ budgets a year ago, or of the additional work load that dealing with IPSA places on Members and on their staff. That situation will leave a number of MPs having to go back to the contingency fund again this year in order to continue to employ the staff they already have and need, and that really does strike me as unsatisfactory.
	There is now greater use of the payment card, but that is not an unalloyed blessing: it is still not available for all costs—as I understand it, it can be used for business rates but not for office rent, and for stationery but not for photocopiers; and reconciliation is still far too time-consuming. I can say from personal experience that accounting for train travel takes much longer than under the old system, when I have to take account of finding the tickets, going on to the IPSA website, typing in destinations repeatedly, copying everything and then posting off the form having made the details available online.
	What would really help and, I think, deal with a lot of frustration is either if more details could be obtained from the credit card company to satisfy IPSA, if IPSA could just agree with the House of Commons travel office that buying a ticket through the office would provide the assurance that it was we who bought it, and that it was a ticket between Westminster and our constituency or back. I use that as an example, because it should be a relatively simple thing to do, and I think it would take away a lot of the frustration that has been expressed in today’s debate and before.
	The second issue I wish to raise is about what is allowed and what will be approved, because IPSA has realised sensibly that there is a balance to be struck in relation to increasingly prescriptive rules. IPSA has come face to face with the way in which we do our job, with Members saying, “What if? This is what I do. Is it okay?”, and it has thought about the issue and realised sensibly that we can either have an increasingly long rule book, with an increasingly lengthy “frequently asked questions” page on the website, or let Members exercise their judgment, in the context of the rules as they are laid down and subject to the sunlight of publication.
	The review has moved more in the direction of the latter, but may I offer some advice to the Committee that we are going to establish on the work that it is going do? There is still a process in-between through which a Member may choose to exercise their discretion and IPSA may second-guess that when deciding whether to approve a claim. We are betwixt and between a more sensible approach.
	Thirdly, we have heard today about how Members feel the system treats them in individual cases and on case work, and I hope that the review will dig into the detail and draw on the experience of the liaison committee, so that the issues which the hon. Member for Gainsborough raised might be looked at.
	Fourthly, there is the question of value for money, something that the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is looking at. Indeed, as Members will know, the National Audit Office is carrying out a value-for-money review.
	Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Windsor that I welcome the transformation in the motion before us from that which was on the Order Paper yesterday. If we have learned one lesson, it is that legislating in haste on this matter can create difficulties.
	I support the motion because it seems to be a very sensible way forward. We should take the opportunity to review the effectiveness of the system that Parliament established, and we should assess progress as well as identifying what more needs to be done. I, for one, look forward to the result of the Committee’s work.

Mark Harper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on securing the debate and on his revised motion, which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said he can support, and which the Government can also support. Setting up a Committee to carry out post-legislative reviews to see how legislation actually takes effect is something that we are always being urged to do in the House, and it is welcome. It will provide Members with the opportunity to put forward facts and the Committee with the opportunity to take evidence and then to come back to the House with its recommendations for consideration. I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and measured speech, which was referred to by Members on both sides of the House.
	My hon. Friend’s motion is very sensible in focusing on the important things—value for money, accountability and public confidence. It also refers to the need to ensure
	“that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.”
	I want him to clarify one part of his speech because I am not sure that I heard it correctly. I think he said that 92% of Members do not claim for things for which they are legitimately allowed to claim, but I would be grateful if he could confirm that. I have not seen that data published, and I would be grateful if he could provide some detail.

Adam Afriyie: I certainly will. This is based on the evidence that I have received and that the 1922 committee demonstrated some time ago—that is, that 92% of hon. Members are not claiming for all the categories for which they are entitled to claim. That would need to be examined; I make no judgment on it right now.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that, which is very helpful.
	As my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, several things have happened since we last debated IPSA in December. At that time, IPSA had not carried out its review of the scheme, and many Members took the opportunity of that debate to put on record their specific concerns not only about the operation of the scheme but its rules. One or two Members have done that today, but in December the comments were much more focused on individual circumstances. IPSA has listened to some of those concerns. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it recognised when it set up the scheme that it did not get everything right in terms of its rules and how it operated. To be fair, it has acknowledged
	that and put some of those things right, particularly as regards enabling us to do our jobs properly. The Government, and all Members, are concerned about ensuring that the system helps rather than hinders.
	As the right hon. Members for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and for Leeds Central said, it is important that we have an independent body that oversees the expenses system and how it operates. We must also have a transparent system. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, it is the sunlight of transparency that helps to ensure that it works properly.

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend is talking about the Brandeis doctrine; Brandeis was a Supreme Court judge in the early 1900s. The review will also need to look at what subsequent academics have said about this. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, but it is conditional on the information that is provided being comparable and on it being disaggregated, so that not only grouped claims or information are published. It is also conditional on the information being standardised, and any review will need to look into those issues.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a good opportunity to leap forward to a point I was going to make later, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when he talked about the publication of data. I know that it can be uncomfortable for hon. Members when information is published, but we are going to have to get used to it, and there is no going back.
	My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a debate to be had, and these are matters that IPSA can think about. There are ways of publishing information that make it comparable and deal with the league table problem, but also make it very matter of fact and not very interesting to the press. There is an argument that if we publish the information in real time as we go along, and do not save it up and publish it in lumps—the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire—it becomes normal, matter-of-fact, routine business that is not of interest to the media. I think it is fair to say that it has become much less interesting to the national media; we do not tend to see the front page stories any more. I know, however, that individual hon. Members often have to deal with local newspaper stories where their papers drill down into particular claims that, in isolation, take a fair degree of explanation but are perfectly reasonable claims for carrying out their work.

Adam Afriyie: I conducted a review of regional and local newspaper publications. The evidence is pretty conclusive. The bimonthly publication we looked at had about 28 million readers. We found that 97% of local newspaper stories were negative towards MPs, and 63% of the stories made unfair or misleading comparisons about MPs and their claims. A lot of this was generated by the way in which the information was being provided to the media under the current scheme. Again, that is something we will look at.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is an opportunity to acknowledge that, as other Members have said, he has done a lot of analytical work. Depending on what the House decides about who serves on the Committee, I am sure that his research will be of great help as it carries out its work.

Kevan Jones: I would add that it is not just about the local media; the BBC in the north-east has taken the approach of doing league tables rather than any analysis of the information. Even though I have tried to FOI the expenses of the journalists on the “Politics Show” in the north-east, the BBC has refused to release them, and I now have an appeal with the Information Commissioner. If this is about public money and transparency, should not other bodies such as the BBC also have their expenses published?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into a much wider debate about public transparency, but this is not the right time for that. He will know that there are ongoing discussions between the BBC and the National Audit Office about various issues, and I am sure that they will carry on. I am not going to take his invitation to dwell on those issues today.
	I want to return to the annual review that IPSA undertook. I think it is fair to say that it made some changes to the scheme and has made it better and easier for Members to operate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said, it has effectively given us more discretion about judging what things are relevant to our parliamentary duties and carrying out our responsibilities. That then raises some other questions, which is welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who chairs the liaison committee, acknowledged the progress that has been made on office costs and on travel, although he acknowledged that there was work to be done in other areas of expenses. It is worth saying that there has been progress, although I know that many Members think that there has not been enough and needs to be more.
	Members referred to value for money, which is specifically mentioned in the motion. It is worth setting out a little more detail. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central referred to the NAO report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has received a letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General setting out the details of that. The NAO is going to carry out a study of IPSA, and the report will be produced before the summer recess.
	An interesting fact of which Members should be aware is that the NAO is going to survey all serving Members of Parliament asking about their experience of IPSA and the expenses scheme. It is moving quite swiftly on the study. It is going to send out questionnaires this coming Monday—16 May—allowing us a fortnight to respond before the Whit recess, and it has asked for Government support in encouraging Members to participate. I do not think, having listened to the debate, talked to several of my colleagues and heard what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said about his conversations with the parliamentary Labour party, that Members will need much encouragement to send back their responses. They should take this opportunity to focus on how well the scheme is working, including value for money and ease of use, so that the NAO can take that into account.

Helen Jones: It is encouraging to hear that the NAO will survey Members. Will the NAO’s value-for-money audit include the cost of the vast amount of time spent by Members and their staff doing work that was previously done elsewhere?

Mark Harper: The Comptroller and Auditor General makes it clear that all the NAO’s work will be independent and evidence based. The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that it is for Members to provide the NAO with that evidence. The NAO has a brief to look at the public sector as a whole; as its masthead says, it is “Helping the nation spend wisely”. If Members feel, as a number have said today, that there is a problem not just with the bureaucratic system, but with the time spent administering it by them and their staff, who are employed at public cost, they should take the opportunity to furnish the NAO with that information. I might be going a little beyond my remit here. I do not know how detailed the questionnaire will be. There might not be a specific question about this matter, but I suspect that there will be. If Members provide this information, the NAO will be able to take it into account. It is no good the NAO just looking at the scheme and the direct costs incurred by IPSA. If, because of the way IPSA is operating, it is putting an extra burden on our offices, which are funded by the taxpayer, the NAO should take that into account. The hon. Lady’s point is therefore very helpful, and Members should give the NAO as much information as possible, so that it can write a sensible, evidence-based report with recommendations. No doubt those recommendations will then be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, as is the usual process, and the Committee that we are setting up.
	The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which was passed in the last Parliament, amended the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to give IPSA a general duty to behave in a cost-effective, efficient manner, and to support MPs to carry out their work efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently. IPSA therefore has a statutory duty to do what it does transparently and independently, and cost-effectively. The NAO report will help to advise IPSA on whether it is complying with the duties it has to carry out under the law that set it up.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister assure that House that when all this excellent work has been done and the Committee makes its recommendations, the Government —I know that he cannot give any absolute promises—will seek to give us a fair wind so that we can implement them?

Mark Harper: As with all reports from Committees of this House, the Government will look carefully at the recommendations. I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me, given that the Committee has not even been set up, let alone started its work, to give assurances that the Government will carry out its every recommendation. The Government will of course study its recommendations. If its recommendations are about process, the scheme and how IPSA operates, they will be for IPSA to consider. Only if they are recommendations for legislative change will they be for the Government to recognise. Every Member who has spoken in this debate has confirmed that they are in favour of an independent and transparent scheme for paying our costs. Clearly, even if Members thought that there were issues, they would not immediately want the Government to rush into legislating. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central said wisely that when this House legislates on such matters in haste, it often comes to repent it.
	The Government will look carefully at the considerations that the Committee makes, and I hope that IPSA will look carefully at them. If the review is carried out in that spirit, I think that it will be very productive.

Andrew Smith: I want to underline the importance of the point that the Minister has just made. Will he assure us that the Government’s response will scrupulously and absolutely uphold the independence of IPSA?

Mark Harper: Yes; I have said that several times and it is important. Although this House has many new Members, it is important that we remember why we got to this position. We have to ensure that we move things forward, and focus on independence and transparency. We have had debates recently on our pay, and the consideration of our pay will be moved across to IPSA in the not-too-distant future. Its independence is important so that people have confidence. The Committee, when it is set up, will have to remember that the recommendations it makes about the scheme and the operation of the scheme will be made to IPSA.

Charles Walker: Does the Minister accept that when we legislate in haste, as we did in 2009, such legislation sometimes has to be revisited and amended with the benefit of hindsight?

Mark Harper: I made a distinction in my remarks. Clearly, if the Committee, or indeed the National Audit Office, makes recommendations about value for money and cost-effectiveness in the way IPSA operates, IPSA will pay attention to them, as with all its recommendations. It may be that the Committee makes recommendations about legislative change. However, we do not want to go back to a system in which the Government—heaven forbid—or the House start to micro-manage the details of the scheme. We have an independent system with transparency, and it is important that we stick with that. The Committee needs to bear that in mind. There will be two important audiences for what the Committee recommends. In the same way that we should not legislate in haste, we should not re-legislate in haste and change things further. The Committee needs to bear that in mind when it considers this matter, and should not immediately leap to the conclusion that we have to change the entire structure of the system.

Edward Leigh: There is a third audience: the taxpayer. Ultimately, nobody is independent of the House of Commons, because the House of Commons is not for us, but for the people—we represent the people and the taxpayer. If serious recommendations are made and IPSA ignores them, the House of Commons has a right to vote on its estimates and to reduce the amount it spends on administration.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes the position very clear. A structure has been set up with the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which heard evidence from IPSA this week and questioned it about its estimate. More work is being done to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point about cost-effectiveness and IPSA’s budget to ensure that at this difficult time for public expenditure, IPSA is as efficient and cost-effective as possible. However, it would be a mistake if we immediately leapt away from an independent, transparent system, which is what the Government, the Opposition, and every Member who has spoken in this debate supports. We cannot have an independent system and simultaneously give it instructions on how to do its job.
	The Government look forward to the Committee’s work and give a commitment that we will look at its recommendations with great care. I will obviously not make any commitments about what we will do until we have seen the report. The Committee should do a thorough job and we look forward to its report. We also look forward to seeing what the NAO has to say. I think that that is a sensible way forward. On that basis, the Government are very relaxed about the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.

Adam Afriyie: I am delighted that the Committee is being set up. I expressed an interest in that Committee. It is time for us to have a calm, careful look at the 2009 Act, as amended in 2010. I hope that all hon. Members, in a non-partisan fashion, will support me and the House in establishing this Committee. We must ensure that the review is thorough, that it is consistent with decisions that have been made, and that the recommendations are robust in defence of the taxpayer and in the pursuit of openness and accountability for Members. Above all, we must ensure that this place and parliamentary democracy function correctly, and that the schemes that are put in place for Members support the work that they do and, preferably, are a lot less costly than they are at present. I urge Members to support the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances established under Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members’ Allowances) that it review the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and make recommendations, giving due consideration to ensuring:
	(a) value for money for taxpayers;
	(b) accountability;
	(c) public confidence in Parliament;
	(d) the ability of Members to fulfil their duties effectively;
	(e) fairness for less well-off Members and those with families; and
	(f) that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.

Fisheries

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call Zac Goldsmith, may I suggest that I am minded to increase the time limit to 10 minutes, or possibly 12 minutes, depending on how long the opening speeches last?

Zac Goldsmith: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the Fish Fight campaign; and calls on the Government to vote against proposed reforms of the EU Common Fisheries Policy unless they implement an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management, end discards in relation to all fish and shellfish with derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding, require that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels by 2015, ensure the involvement of fishers and other stakeholders in decision-making processes and enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters, taking into particular account vessel size and environmental impact.
	The motion has been tabled my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for St Ives (Andrew George), the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and myself. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us an opportunity to have this very important debate.
	The motion is about the scandal of fish discards. Up to half the fish caught in the North sea are thrown back into the water either dead or dying, as a direct consequence of perverse EU common fisheries policy rules. Members will know that there was an overwhelming public reaction following Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign. More than 600,000 people signed petitions calling for an end to discards, and many of them wrote to their Member of Parliament calling for immediate action. Their concerns are clearly mirrored here in Parliament, where the second most supported early-day motion since the general election calls for a discard ban. In addition, we have a Minister responsible for fisheries and a Prime Minister who have both recognised the absurdity of the current rules.
	The time is right for a debate of this type because CFP negotiations are at a crucial stage. The European Commission is to make formal proposals in June or July, and decisions are to be taken some time in October, so now is our chance to give the Government a mandate to take the strongest possible line in those negotiations.
	It is difficult to know exactly how many fish are being thrown away, because records are not kept and discards are not monitored. However, the EU estimates that in the North sea, between 40% and 60% of the total catch is discarded. The research of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more or less backs up that figure. In other UK fisheries, the total is probably even higher. For instance, in the west of Scotland area, the Scottish Government believe that as much as 90% of the total cod catch is discarded. Partly because of that horrendous and mind-boggling waste, the European Commission’s own scientific advisers estimate that 72% of assessed EU species are now overfished.
	It is grossly unfair that so often the fishermen get the blame for that madness, because most of the discards are the inevitable and unavoidable consequence of decisions
	imposed on them by politicians. To add insult to injury, those laws are supposed to be about conservation.

Michael Weir: I am very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about fishermen, because Scottish fishermen in particular have spent a great deal of time and effort to try to have measures introduced to minimise discards. However, the current CFP works against them in many ways.

Zac Goldsmith: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Fishermen all around our coast are trying very hard to avoid this appalling waste, and I have yet to meet a fisherman who supports the current rules, so I echo what he says.
	As all Members will know, reform of the CFP is complicated and hugely contentious, but whatever reforms are agreed, they must include a discard ban. We know that there are alternatives. For example, we could replace landing quotas with catch quotas so that by-catch that would otherwise be discarded had to be landed. The UK has already been piloting a scheme for cod involving six vessels in England and 17 in Scotland, and results so far suggest that it is working. Discards of cod are down to, I believe, between 1% and 7%. In addition, fishermen are using more selective gear and managing to catch more valuable fish.

Andrew George: I entirely support the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not wish to sound pedantic, but I hope he agrees that when we talk about fish discards, we are primarily talking about the discard of dead fish. There are many fisheries in which the poor fish, although they are no doubt traumatised, can be slipped back into the sea. Many of them are juveniles and capable of further growth.

Zac Goldsmith: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and in fact the motion suggests a
	“derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding”,
	so that would include the type of catch that he mentions.
	In addition to the pilots in our own waters, a discard ban has been operating since 1987 in Norway, where over-quota or unwanted species are landed for a guaranteed minimum value and sold to the fishmeal industry, with the proceeds used to reinvest in and support the fishing industry. To make a discard ban easier, we will have to do everything we can to help fishermen access and use more selective gear so that they can avoid the unwanted fish in the first place.
	Consumers also have a clear role. A significant percentage of fish are discarded because there is no market for them, and the Government can boost that market through their vast procurement programme. We spend £2 billion each year on food for the wider public sector, and that is an obvious tool that the Government can use. However, there are obviously limits to what a Government can do to shape a fashion, and it is worth mentioning non-Government initiatives such as “Hugh’s Mackerel Mission”, which is intended to help stimulate new markets for less popular species. It is a valuable campaign, and I urge Members to support it.
	Discards are the most visible flaw in the CFP regime, but they are only part of the problem. In addition, the motion calls for radical decentralisation, and I wish
	briefly to focus on that. One of the key demands from our fishing communities, and in particular from the under-10 metre fleet, is that we assert our control over what are wrongly described as our sovereign waters—the 12 nautical miles surrounding our coastline. I say “wrongly” because whereas the British Government can legally impose whatever rules and regulations they want within those waters, from six to 12 miles out those rules will apply only to British vessels. It is clear that higher standards are a good thing, but only if they are fair and we have an even playing field. That is categorically not the case in our waters.
	For example, in 2004 the UK banned pair-trawling for bass within 12 miles of the south-west coast of England, to protect dolphins and porpoises. Although our own fishermen adhered to the law, the ban did absolutely nothing to prevent French and Spanish trawlers from continuing to catch bass in those waters, which was both wrong and unfair. If those rights for foreign vessels are to be retained, it seems to me that they should come with an absolute and non-negotiable obligation to adhere to our own rules. That is why the motion demands, among other things, that any reforms of the CFP must
	“enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters”.
	That is an absolutely fundamental issue. If we reassert our control over those waters we will not only provide welcome relief for our smaller boats against the onslaught of the factory fishing vessels, but we will be able to establish an intelligent, ecosystem-based management system and ensure the health of our fisheries indefinitely.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it was a mistake almost 40 years ago when the fishing grounds were used as a bargaining chip for entering the European Economic Community, as it then was? What will he do to ensure that his Government reverse that and give us 200-mile control rather than 12-mile control?

Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my concluding remarks, so I will ask him to hold on for a few moments.
	If we were able to reassert control over our waters, we would also be able to set the rules on science. With the active involvement of those who depend more than anyone else on the viability and health of our marine environment—the fishermen themselves—we would be able to get the policy right. That would also allow us to do something even more important—to recognise in law and in our regulatory regime, finally, the difference between smaller, traditional fishing vessels and their giant industrial competitors. It is an absolute mystery to me why successive Governments have always chosen to view the latter, the so-called fishing lobby, as the true voice of fishermen.
	More than three quarters of the UK fleet is made up of vessels of 10 metres and under, which represent about 65% of full-time employment. Under the previous Administration, the 5,000 or so 10-metre and under vessels were given just 4% of the national quota, compared with the staggering 96% that was given to bigger boats,
	which number fewer than 1,500. It is staggeringly unfair, and if we were able to organise ourselves in the way that we chose within those 12 miles, we would be able to recognise the madness of that system in law.
	It is an obvious observation that the smaller vessels are restricted in where they can go and what damage they can do, simply because of their size. The tools that they use do not compare with those available to the industrial factory fishing vessels, some of which have lines that would stretch from Parliament to Brighton, and purse seine nets that are big enough to swallow two millennium domes—which is a nice thought in some respects.
	Whereas the interests of the smaller fishing communities are necessarily aligned with conservationists and consumers, the tools of destruction used by the mega-trawlers are fundamentally incompatible with any kind of sustainable future. That has finally been recognised at EU level, in word if not in deed. The new EU Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, has said:
	“We…believe, based on scientific information, that small-scale fisheries are more sustainable and have a lower environmental footprint…Small-scale fisheries are also…more friendly to employment, and this is a key issue. We also recognise that small-scale fisheries are very important for the survival of coastal communities, for their identity, culture, history and way of life.”
	Hear, hear to that, but let us see that finally translated into law. It is time for a clear and forceful policy distinction between the interests of the small-scale, more traditional fisherman, and large-scale operations.

Bob Stewart: Is it possible for us to have small-scale fishing out to 12 miles, and to ban factory fishing within, or am I being slightly naive in this modern age?

Zac Goldsmith: I can only tell my hon. Friend that I would like to see a system biased in favour of the small-scale, traditional fisherman, but that is an academic discussion until we reassert our control over those 12 miles. When we have done that, we can raise standards. Lobby groups that represent the fishermen who use smaller vessels are very much in support of his message.

Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the current restrictions on the 6 and 12-mile limits? The 0 to 6-mile limit is restricted to UK fishermen only, but in the 6 to 12-mile zone, we share access with vessels from member states that have historical fishing rights.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend makes an accurate observation. That was exactly my point in my opening remarks. The zone between 6 and 12 miles is described as sovereign or territorial waters, but we are unable to apply our rules to foreign vessels, which is deeply unfair. I know that she will speak on that issue with much greater experience than I could ever hope for.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this measure before the House. Like his constituency, my constituency can hardly be described as coastal, but we have both had a large amount of correspondence on this subject. I believe that that is informed not only by concern for the
	environment and our fishing industry but by an instinctive dislike of wasting food, which is very deep in the national psyche.

Zac Goldsmith: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In normal circumstances reform of the CFP would be regarded as a nerdy issue, of interest to very few, but fish discards have caught the public’s imagination, for all the reasons that he identifies. No one likes the idea of waste, and no one welcomes the obliteration of our marine environment. People also instinctively recognise that this is also about fairness.
	I shall conclude shortly, because I know that there is great demand among hon. Members to speak. For all Ted Heath’s “pure brilliance”—his words, not mine, as no one will be surprised to hear—he was wrong to surrender our fishing rights as a price worth paying for our entry into the European Economic Community. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) about that. However, we have an opportunity to empower our brilliant fisheries Minister to right some of those historical wrongs. We can end discards, restore control over that key 12-mile zone, and set rules that allow both our fishing communities and our marine environment to survive and flourish. I strongly urge all hon. Members to support the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I should let the House know that the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) have been selected. She may move them later.
	Before I call Mr Austin Mitchell, I remind the House that I have extended the limit to 12 minutes.

Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) both on his record on conservation issues and on securing this important debate. It is marvellous that the grumbles and grievances of Members about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority have subsided so much that we have time for a full-length debate on this matter. I hope that all the hon. Members for inland fishing ports who are round about me in the Chamber are gathering to give us their ports’ views on the CFP. Fishing rarely gets such an opportunity for a serious debate. We are usually squeezed in at the end of another serious discussion, but today we have time, and I hope all fishing Members use it.
	Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall certainly did a useful and important job, but we should draw attention to the iniquities of the CFP, which causes the problem of discards in the first place. The CFP puts marine wildlife, seaweed and all forms of sea life into the European constitution. It is the first constitution to include seaweed, marine life, algae and all the other things. That is a great achievement in constitution making: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. Marine life has a right to be part of the European constitution, to be dealt with only by European vessels!” That is Stalinism at sea—the last vestige of the Stalinist state—and it is being imposed on the waters around Britain, where it has been most damaging.
	It is my contention that it is impossible to deal adequately with the problem of discards as long as the CFP remains, because it is the major cause of discards.

Angus MacNeil: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of a European consultation paper on the CFP. The paper admitted the failure of the CFP and that the areas where it worked were those under national control. Surely if people want the CFP to continue, they should allow national control to 199 miles, and apply the CFP between 199 and 200 miles—a minimal ribbon. The CFP has failed and will continue to do so, but there are no milestones by which we can correct the CFP in future. We will bumble on for years with the CFP unless European Governments get their acts together and get rid of it.

Austin Mitchell: I hope that that becomes part of Scottish National party policy and that it is implemented by the new SNP Government in Edinburgh—it certainly needs to be. I hereby renew my application to become the SNP fisheries spokesman. My previous applications over the years have been consummately rejected.
	The important point is that the CFP allocates catches by quota to fishing vessels in mixed fishing grounds, which waters around the British coast are. As long as we control catches by quotas, there will always be discards, because fisherman who put to sea for haddock or cod will catch species that are not in their quotas.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one other main problem with the CFP is the single-species stipulation, which often applies to the species that are most under threat? That causes distortions in the catching of other species and leads to discards. There are better models than the EU model, such as those in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. The CFP model is the worst of the lot. That is why those countries will have nothing to do with Europe.

Austin Mitchell: I agree, absolutely—this speech is becoming a duet between me and the Scottish National party, which is an interesting state of affairs. The problem that the hon. Gentleman points to is that simplistic solutions will not work. The problem with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s proposals is that they are simplistic. The EU has responded to them with another simplistic solution, which will not work either. It took the Norwegians 20 years to develop their techniques, and they did it in very different fisheries, with an emphasis on conserving the young, immature fish. Norway’s job has therefore been much easier, but it has taken it 20 years to eliminate discards. We have had 10 years of working to reduce discards, in which they have been reduced by 50%. That has happened partly, it has to be said, as a result of decommissioning, but also because of other measures, such as square-mesh panels, which were developed by the industry as a means of conservation.

Barry Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Norwegians’ use of temporary real-time closures of areas when by-catch becomes excessive has served as an incentive for fishermen to use more selective gear? Does he also agree that selling fish caught illegally, without quota, through fishermen’s sales organisations—where the fishermen are entitled to only 20% of the revenue to cover the costs, thereby avoiding
	wastage and maintaining incentives to use selective gear by channelling profits back into fisheries—has been a key measure in achieving what he describes?

Austin Mitchell: I agree, absolutely. We have a lot to learn from the Norwegians, but the point is that the Norwegians control their own waters in the 200-mile limit around Norway, just as we should control the 200-mile limit—or the median line—around the British coast, but we do not. Therefore, we cannot enforce such measures. That is the problem with all these arguments.
	The television programmes that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall did were fantastic. The great innovation—the great gimmick—of landing discards at Hastings and throwing them to the crowd on the beach, because landing them would have been illegal, was marvellous, because people took those fish home and cooked them. I wrote to Fearnley-Whittingstall and suggested that he should hire a cruiser and follow the fishing fleet around, picking up the discards and serving them as expensive meals to a wealthy clientele on the North sea coast. That kind of experiment would have been useful. However, his solution is simplistic; therefore, it will not work.
	Following Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s pressure on fisheries policy—on which I again congratulate him—the EU has put forward another simplistic solution. What it is doing—I suspect rather cynically—is setting out the problem, throwing it back to the nation states and telling them to solve it with a ban on discards, which will not work and cannot work. The Minister cannot solve the problem, so we are in deadlock. The EU proposes measures that will not work and forces them on the nation states, which cannot enforce them because of the common fisheries policy, and nothing happens, which is likely to remain the outcome.
	The British reduction of discards by more than 50% over 10 years was achieved through square-mesh panels, video observation of the fishermen, closing grounds in-season and cod recovery plans, which were submitted by the fishermen and approved by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They were all painstaking, laborious techniques, but they have worked. That is the only way to do it, not through a simplistic ban, because fishermen will continue to discard.

Jim Shannon: There have been lots of European ideas to enable the cod recovery plans. However, on many occasions scientists put forward regulations and suggestions when fishermen were saying that there were schools upon schools of cod in the sea. Therefore, there is perhaps a difference between the scientist and the fisherman when it comes to who knows best.

Austin Mitchell: That is certainly true, and again, it illustrates the difficulties that we face. One attempt that Europe has made—the cod ban—has proved disastrous for enforcement and protecting stocks, not to mention avoiding discards. That is control from the centre. What we need in the EU now is a policy to address that, yet power is being taken away from the Council—at least we have an opportunity to put up a fight against any proposals in the Council, and to bargain and improve our position in negotiations—and transferred to the Commission. However, the commissioners have never
	knowingly handed power down to the nation states—or, in the case of fishing, to the regional advisory councils. The North sea RAC is doing a splendid job. If the power to manage stocks was conceded to it, it could eliminate discards. However, it is not doing that because in the final analysis, the EU will never hand over the necessary powers to allow the RACs or nation states to deal with the problem adequately. In those situations, discarding will continue because, under a discard ban, what is a fisherman who catches fish that are not on his quota supposed to do with them? It is inevitable that he will chuck them overboard, if he can do so unobserved. We cannot monitor every ship by satellite or closed-circuit television; that is just impossible. So this is an impossible plan and it will not work.
	That is why I was loth to give my support to the early-day motion. There is a continuous conflict between the conservationists, whose aims I admire, and the needs of commercial fishing. We see this in the marine conservation areas. There is now an argument to make them areas in which there is either no fishing or very restricted fishing, but we must not turn the waters around the British coast into a patchwork quilt, with some areas where fisherman can catch and some where they cannot, or with different quotas for different areas involving limits on species. It is appalling that there is a proposal to ban fishing in the experimental areas that are being set up. We cannot do that.

Barry Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the 2006 reorganisation of the Manguson Stevens Act in the US required the end of over-fishing by 2010? In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service has now heralded the fact that that has taken place in US waters. That policy’s success was due to the requirement for new annual catch limits in every fishery, and the establishment of strict scientific guidelines on the limits of sustainability, within which annual catch limits could be set.

Austin Mitchell: That is so. We have set up our marine conservation areas, and I support them, but I do not support them as a means of restricting the opportunities for fishing.
	I suppose that I had better bring my remarks to a conclusion, enthusiastic as I am to go on for hours, preventing all the other Members who want to raise matters from doing so. I shall simply say that the fishing industry has the greatest and the closest interest in proper conservation, because it has an interest in the sustainability of stocks. It wants the stocks to be there to hand on to the next generation of fishermen. That is why it was always important for us to have 200-mile limits to protect our fishing, in the way that Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, America, Canada and many other nations have been able to do. We cannot do that now, however, because Ted Heath foolishly handed these powers over, just like that, without argument, to Europe. The fishing industry wants sustainable catching as well as conservation measures, and it is the only body that can enforce them and ensure that they work, because it is in the interests of the fishermen to do so.

Claire Perry: Although the industry might have the desire to be involved in conservation measures, would the hon. Gentleman agree that, as a result of the quotas and the ridiculous policy on discards,
	there is no incentive for fishermen to take that long-term view? Anything we can do to align the stewardship incentives with the incentives for the industry would be extremely welcome.

Austin Mitchell: I agree. That is a very important point, and well put—said he, unctuously. This comes back to my point that the only way of enforcing these measures is if the industry enforces them itself, because it is the only one who has such an interest in them. At the moment, the regulations work in a contrary direction, but if they could work with the grain of the industry, and if the industry could be involved in formulating the measures, we could get a proper, effective conservation measure that would work. That is the aim, and we should not look for measures from Europe. We should aim for a handing down of power to the industry, so as to involve it in creating sustainability and pursuing its own interests.

Sheryll Murray: For the second time today, I declare a special interest as the custodian of an under-10 metre commercial trawler, although she is not fishing at present. May I also thank all hon. Members for the support and kindness they have shown me following Neil’s death? It is a great comfort to me and my children that so many people have been thinking of us.
	I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for securing this debate. Europe’s fish stocks are shared out according to Council regulation 2371/2002, which must be reviewed by 31 December 2012. This is the third review we have seen. I will not dwell on the history, although I will go back over a little of it. In 1972, the UK accession to the European Economic Community agreed equal access to a common resource. In 1976, the UK declared a 200-mile limit or median line, even though we had by then ceded control of fisheries to the EEC. In 1983, the total allowable catch—TAC—and quota system was agreed, along with the principle of relative stability, which is a mechanism of sharing out the European TAC among the member states according to their historical record of fishing. That agreement was reviewed in 1992 and the fishing industry was looking for some change, but it never came. In 2002, we were given a promise of change, but still TACs and quotas continued, with this Minister’s Department and, more recently, devolved Administrations responsible for the domestic quota management. So much regulation has been heaped on fishermen over the past 40 years, is it any wonder UK fishermen feel they have been served a very bad deal? I agree with their view.
	There are several parts to this motion. An ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management is sensible, and I am pleased the Minister is already looking at marine protected areas. However, I have grave concerns that despite in excess of £4 million being spent since 2009 on consultation, my local fishermen in Looe and Polperro feel that the information that they have supplied has been completely ignored by Finding Sanctuary and Natural England. Scientists, environmentalists and fishermen should work together, but to make this work fishermen must be confident that they are equal partners. I hope that the Minister will confirm that no marine protected area will be imposed upon the south-west
	unless and until there is buy-in from the fishermen. I attended one of the Finding Sanctuary consultations with my husband, and we were asked to give details of where the fishermen worked so that the marine protected areas would not prevent them from earning. I am shocked to be told by those very same fishermen today that those very areas are now identified for closure or restriction.
	Socio-economics must be a major factor when marine environmental measures are introduced. The discarding of fish is a wicked waste of nutrition. I congratulate Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall on bringing the issue to the attention of the public and to that of the European Commission. In the early 1990s, south-west fishermen covered Royal parade in Plymouth with plaice to illustrate the waste caused by the quota, but 20 years on we are still talking about the problem. There are anomalies to a discard ban. Lobster and crab survive capture. Crab pots are not size-sensitive, yet if all the babies were landed, it would lead to the extinction of the species.
	I think that 2015 is a realistic target to ensure we fish sustainably. British fishermen do not intentionally set out to catch baby fish; they continually adapt their nets with square mesh panels and separator grids to avoid catching small fish or the wrong species. I understand that only two days ago discussions at a meeting north of the border centred around introducing a trial of a net to reduce discards in the nephrops fishery. I have been told that it would take only half a day to adapt an existing nephrops net to this design. Fishermen cannot avoid capturing unwanted fish and, in my constituency, they sometimes find their nets full of undersized red gurnards. Those are non-pressure stock and, according to the Marine Conservation Society, the data have shown an indication of their stability in recent years. We need to find a use for these fish, however.
	Scientists and environmentalists will often talk about fish without considering the fishermen. Many people forget that a fishing skipper needs expertise in a number of fields: engineering, fish biology, navigation and weather forecasting, as well as the usual requirements for running a small business. Imagine how soul destroying it is to tow gear for hours, haul in a net and find the cod-end full of the wrong species, then throw them back and return to port with a massive fuel bill and no money to pay for it! It angers me when I hear scientists dismiss out of hand the fishermen’s assessment of the stocks. The fishermen—and some fisherwomen; we have at least one in Cornwall—are experts and should be treated as equals.
	Let me move on to deal with fishing within territorial waters. According to paragraph 2 of article 17 of the basic regulation, fishing activity is restricted in waters up to 12 miles from the baseline under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of member states to local fishermen or those from other member states with historic rights—until the end of 2012 when the limits that have been in place for 30 years could be abolished.
	I believe that abolition of this protection would be a move too far. We have a referendum lock in place for new EU treaties, so why not have a referendum if the protection of our sovereign territorial waters is threatened? I believe the 12-mile limit should be reserved for small inshore UK vessels that are unable to migrate to fishing grounds further from their home ports. These vessels support coastal communities. Small vessels—even small trawlers that operate with a single trawl, many fitted
	with rockhopper foot ropes and vented trawl doors to avoid damaging the sea bed—have a lower impact on the marine environment than more powerful vessels or vessels towing two nets at the same time.
	Under 10-metre vessels have been disadvantaged by the UK system. The underestimation of the quota came to light under the last Government, who failed to resolve the problem. We now find that the very vessels that caused the least amount of damage to the stocks are struggling to survive.

Jason McCartney: I praise my hon. Friend not just for the knowledge and expertise she brings to this debate, but for the dignified way in which she has spoken. I speak as an MP for a landlocked area, and we are lucky that a number of fresh fish sellers come daily into my local villages in Colne Valley and West Yorkshire. We also have Fairtrade shops, so we know what kind of chocolate or coffee to buy. Will my hon. Friend advise my constituents on what kind of accreditation marks they should look out for if they want to make a knowledgeable purchase of sustainable fish products?

Sheryll Murray: Yes, the Marine Conservation Society accredits species of fish caught in an environmentally friendly way—pole fishing for tuna, for example, or mackerel handlining, which is particularly important in the south-west. I understand from a question put to the Minister earlier that there is cause for concern in Cornwall about the cost of accreditation for mackerel handline fishermen.

Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the point I put in a question this morning. For Marine Stewardship Council accreditation, the 200 Cornish fishermen who benefit from this particular fishery have to pay £12,000 plus VAT a year in registration costs. In addition, they see that a number of rather high-impact fishing methods used elsewhere have also received accreditation, which they view as altogether downgrading the significance of MSC accreditation.

Sheryll Murray: I thank my hon. Friend, who has great expertise in that subject. I applaud the way in which the Minister is trying to resolve the matter, but ask him to take a further look at the impact assessment accompanying the present consultation.

Charles Walker: Earlier in her speech, my hon. Friend mentioned the marketing of fish. Is it not important for us to seek innovative ways of marketing them? The humble mackerel is really a tuna. Should it not be called the north Atlantic tuna? I know that in my hon. Friend’s constituency the pilchard is in reality a Cornish sardine and that the pollack has been renamed a colin, but surely we should consider other innovative ways of putting unpopular fish on the slabs of fishmongers, or at least into some form of fishfinger that people would want to eat.

Sheryll Murray: Marketing necessities in the United Kingdom certainly include the need to attract the British housewife to other species of fish as well as just the traditional cod and haddock.
	I assure Members that I have tried a variety of fish in my time. Perhaps at this point I should pay tribute to my local fishermen. When my husband came home with a fish for me, it was usually a damaged fish that he could not put on the market for sale. Since his death I have received carrier bags full of fish, and I now have a huge amount in my freezer. I thank the fishermen in my constituency for considering my family in that way.
	Several assumptions have been made on page 13 of the impact assessment that accompanies the recently published consultation document. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether his Department has conducted a sensitivity analysis to test the effect of those assumptions on under-10-metre vessels?
	Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend for the way in which he has approached his brief. Having been involved in fisheries for almost 30 years, I have dealt with quite a number of fisheries Ministers, and it is really refreshing to have a Minister who cares about the marine environment, fish stocks, and—most important to me—the fishermen themselves. I wish him well in the negotiations over the coming months, and hope that he can secure a deal in the Council to secure the real change for which the industry has been calling since 1983. I hope that all Members will join me in supporting the motion, and that the Minister will have the backing of the House in seeking the outcome that we all want to see.

Tom Greatrex: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who brings a great deal of expertise and experience to this and other fisheries debates as well as to DEFRA parliamentary questions dealing with fisheries issues. I do not have the same amount of personal experience. Indeed, I believe that I was one of the only three Members who spoke during a fisheries debate in Westminster Hall in December whose constituencies did not contain fishing fleets; the others were the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain).
	I note that many more such Members are present today. That may demonstrate the power of television in focusing attention on the issue of discards, which those who are involved in fisheries issues have been discussing for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) mentioned the action that has been taken by fishing fleets around the United Kingdom. That too has been happening for many years, although it is in danger of being overlooked in the debate. It is assumed that the issue has only just come to public attention and that people are now suddenly caring about it, but that is far from being the case.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park on tabling the motion and initiating the debate. He has hit on an issue that many of our constituents have raised. However, we should not see dealing with discards as a panacea for all the problems connected with fisheries, especially as we head towards the period from July onwards when the Minister will be discussing reform of the common fisheries policy.
	In the fisheries debate in December, I said that about 10 years had passed since I worked at the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the
	same arguments are being made now as were made then about the pressing need for reform of the common fisheries policy.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend says that there were calls for reform many years ago, but nothing has substantively changed. I think we should abolish the CFP and return to having national fisheries, but in any case is it not time that we got rid of the word “reform”? It is used by Front-Bench spokesperson after Front-Bench spokesperson as a get-out for doing nothing in reality.

Tom Greatrex: I share some of my hon. Friend’s frustrations about the lack of progress over many years. Often in European discussions, issues get traded off against each other; certain issues that should have been dealt with are not addressed, as other issues are seen as more pressing concerns. Fisheries have suffered as a result. Perhaps because I am slightly younger than my hon. Friend, or perhaps because I am a little naive in this respect, I am more hopeful than he is that the documentation from the Commission and some of the comments from the commissioner may give us cause to think that we have a serious chance of getting decent reform of the CFP on this occasion.
	We will certainly have further discussions on this topic, but it is right to offer the Minister who will handle it in Europe our encouragement. We all understand that the negotiations will be very complex, as they will involve various different states and lots of different interests. One of the consequences of the increased interest in discards and other issues is that that has provoked the commissioner into saying some interesting things recently. While just saying things is not necessarily an indication of future action, there is now an opportunity, and we would be foolish not to try to take it.

Andrew Smith: Is it not noteworthy that the commissioner has referred to the sheer scale of the public outcry and demand for action in the United Kingdom, and does that not point to the need for us to sustain this admirable campaign—I congratulate all those who have been leading it—and to broaden it to other European countries?

Tom Greatrex: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which I alluded to when talking about the power of the television documentary and the campaign.
	I want to address the wider issue of CFP reform, as well as discards. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) must know a lot about the discards issue, as some of the fleets in her constituency have tackled it in innovative ways, such as through employing different nets. As that shows, fishing fleets have taken action, but we must address discards within the context of the CFP as a whole, and there are other important issues that will also need to be taken seriously in the negotiations.
	The hon. Member for South East Cornwall and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talked about sustainability. That is not solely the preserve of scientists and conservationists; sustainability is also inherently in the interests of the fishing communities, but for far too long they have, effectively, been given perverse incentives not to act in a sustainable way. That
	is the fault not of the fishing fleets or the communities whose livelihoods depend on fishing, but of the regime. It therefore needs to form part of the changes to that regime.
	A move towards multi-year quotas, which the report of the draft I read this morning seemed to suggest the Commission was proposing, is an important part of the changes needed, so I encourage the Minister to keep it on his agenda for the negotiations. It is frustrating that once a year in December people have to sit through the night to set the agenda for the next year, while industries and people—sometimes working in remote parts of the country—whose livelihoods depend on the industry are left not knowing what the position will be a few months hence. That does not help them to make long-term decisions about investment in their vessels or about how to pursue their economic interests. We hope that the July discussions will provide an opportunity to address this situation, because it is not healthy, sensible or sustainable.
	Will the Minister bear it in mind that, as I said in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions earlier, we cannot have imposed on everybody an inflexible regime that is unable to adapt to local circumstances? There are a number of fisheries around the UK coast in which fleets fish for mixed catches, and a strict regime on them could have unintended adverse consequences. We have to ensure therefore that there is the appropriate flexibility for local management within whatever improvements are made to the CFP. I share others’ frustrations with the CFP over recent years. Reform remains necessary, and discards are part of the problem. It is heartening that this issue is getting much more attention than even a few months ago, but it is not the only issue. CFP reform and moving to multi-year quotas and greater sustainability will be in the interests of everybody involved in the industry. They are also in the interests of a number of my constituents who have recently discovered a shared interest in this issue because of the discards campaign. We need to ensure that this is at the forefront of the agenda in the negotiations that the Minister will take part in over the next few months. I sincerely wish him all the best in that, and I hope that many Members will support him in taking this agenda forward.

Mark Spencer: I do not intend to take up my full time allocation, as I want to make only a few points. First, however, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who brought this motion before the House, and to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who spoke eloquently and informatively. She brings to the House the benefit of her and her family’s expertise and experience in Cornwall.
	As many Members will know, Sherwood is a land-locked constituency in the middle of Nottinghamshire, but my constituents know what is right and what is wrong—and this is clearly wrong. Only the European Union could dream up a policy under which trawlermen can bring back to land only a small proportion of the fish they catch and must throw the rest overboard. It does not make any sense ecologically, economically or morally. We have to consider the reason for these discards, however. They are the result of the quota system introduced by the EU, which measures the fish brought back to
	land. If possible, we should consider a system that measures the fish as they are brought on to the boat, rather than when they are landed back at the port.
	I am not an expert in fisheries, but the comparisons with agriculture strike me. Is it possible to consider a system similar to the one that operated in the sugar industry with sugar beet, with an A, B and C quota. The fish would still be taken to market, but their value would be much lower, to encourage them to be brought back to land.
	High grading is a system whereby fishermen go out, catch the fish and try to retain those of the highest value. That is causing a problem in that the small-value fish are thrown overboard. In terms of the fish stocks, however, they are quite high value, because they are often the young and small fish that will go on to grow and be the future stocks.

Bob Stewart: This seems nonsensical to me. Surely we cannot design a system whereby any fish are thrown back. Once a fish is landed, it is damaged, and if it is put back it will probably die. Whatever system we design must be sensible, ensure that all fish are landed and aim to preserve fish stocks. We should not just put some back and keep some.

Mark Spencer: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We also need to find new technologies, and there are technologies available that sieve fish and pass the smaller ones through the nets so that they are not captured.

Kelvin Hopkins: I broadly support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is not the problem not that individual fishing boats are catching too much fish but that too many fishing boats are fishing? Overfishing can be regulated only by a nation managing its own fishing waters and what is landed from the sea. That can be achieved only with a national approach to fishing.

Mark Spencer: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Standing in this place, with history around us, I wonder what such characters as Drake and Nelson would have thought of the way in which this country has given up its territorial rights to our waters. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which Drake would have tolerated French and Spanish ships coming 12 miles off the shore of England and done nothing about it.
	We need to take control of our waters. All this happened when I was at primary school—

Daniel Kawczynski: With Drake?

Mark Spencer: Of course, I was not at primary school with Sir Francis Drake, but I was at primary school when the European Union came up with the schemes that gave away our territorial rights to our waters. That was a great shame, but we need to consider it in the light of where we find ourselves today. We need to consider how we can take it back and find a system that is morally acceptable and better for our oceans.

Joan Walley: As a sponsor of the motion, I am grateful to have the opportunity to put on the record how important I think it is. Surely the
	important issue is the marine ecosystem and the duty and responsibility we all have to ensure that it can function in an ethically sustainable way. We must put the environment at the heart of all that we do so that we have a sustainable ecosystem for our marine waters.

Mark Spencer: I absolutely agree and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. We need to ensure that future generations have access to fish as part of their diet. Fish make up an important part of the diet. Omega 3 is important and people need it as part of a healthy diet. Unless we get this right at this moment, fish stocks will not be available for future generations. That will be a sad indictment of us as politicians and of the decisions that we make.
	My final comments are to the general public. Consumers are powerful and retailers listen to consumers. I encourage members of the public to challenge their retailers—supermarkets and fishmongers—to tell them how their fish is caught and harvested and how many discards there are. Several retailers, including Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencer, have done some work on making good progress on this front. I hope that we can find a solution.

Jane Ellison: I would add Waitrose to that list of supermarkets, and I declare an interest because I used to work for it. It sponsored a very good film called “The End of the Line”, and I would like to note the brilliant work done by the person who put that film together in kicking off this discussion, ahead of the Fish Fight campaign, several years ago. Will my hon. Friend join me, and other hon. Members I am sure, in encouraging consumers who feel strongly about this issue, many of whom have written to us, to be part of the solution, albeit a small part? If everyone who has sent us an e-mail about this also changes their fish-buying behaviour and attempts to influence their friends and family to change theirs, they can become a small part of the solution just as much as by urging us to be part of it.

Mark Spencer: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. The Countryside Agency ran a campaign some time ago with the strapline “Eat the View”, which encouraged consumers to think about where their food came from because its production directly affects the world around us. What we look at, what we see and how the world produces food is directly affected by how and where we purchase food. I encourage consumers to hold retailers to account—to challenge them and make sure that they are doing the right thing not only for us but for future generations and future food production in general.

Alan Whitehead: I am very pleased to be a sponsor of the motion and I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on introducing it. I congratulate him also on drafting a motion that mentions not only discards but what we fundamentally need to do to achieve the aims and objectives that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), among others, of putting sustainability and our environment first in our fisheries policy.
	Something that has always struck me about fisheries policy is that, whatever concerns one has about the motives and actors involved, it resembles what is sometimes
	described in political theory discussions as the tragedy of the commons. If eight farms surround a common and one farmer decides to keep pigs, which eat the beech mast from the common and get very fat, that works very well for that rational farmer who does very well. So then another rational farmer decides to keep pigs too, thinking that those pigs will also get fat from eating the beech mast on the common—and they do. But then another two farmers also decide, quite rationally, to keep pigs, thinking that the beech mast comes every year and is not a finite resource. After three or four more farmers have the same rational idea, all the pigs die because there is not enough beech mast for them all. Whatever the rational concerns of fishermen, fishing fleets and, indeed, policy makers about fish stocks and how fisheries work, unless there are policies that go beyond relying on the rational instincts of people who are involved in these issues, and unless policies regulate the industry so that it is genuinely sustainable overall, tragedy will inevitably result.
	It is commonplace to say that the world is extremely overfished, but we also know that about 90% of all the cod that are caught have never had a chance to breed. I do not think that it requires a great deal of analysis to recognise that if 90% of the breeding population is removed before it can even begin to breed, that population will not last long.

Brian H Donohoe: Only a fortnight ago, I went across the Clyde to Arran to see at first hand a no-go area, which has already achieved results beyond everyone’s expectations. Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be plentiful fish, but only on the basis that we allow breeding grounds where there is no fishing?

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was going to say. Any ecosystem-based fishing policy has to relate to precisely the question of no-fishing areas. I appreciate the difficulties of enforcement and the problems that that represents, but under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2010 we have developed the potential of no-fishing areas and have already seen results in limited fishing areas, which create a haven where species can start to rebuild breeding stocks and then repopulate other areas. That is an important part of an eco-fishing analysis.

Zac Goldsmith: I want to echo that point. The most successful marine protected areas around the world are protected with the co-operation of fishing communities, and the biggest beneficiaries, beyond the fish, are fishermen themselves. In Costa Rica, Japan, Spain and so on, there are lots of successful stories of marine protected areas, which have boosted fishermen’s income and increased biodiversity, which is crucial.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman underlines a point that I wish to emphasise. The tragedy of the commons is a good example of regulated assistance for rational activity that benefits people who are trying to make a living and acting rationally in so doing. With the assistance of those no-fishing zones, there are substantial consequences beyond those zones, as there are benefits for all concerned.
	Yes, it is true that we should end discards, but if we do so that will not by any means solve the problems. The motion goes much further and proposes that an
	ecosystem-based fishing regime should be part of a new common fisheries policy. The question of discards is a world issue for fishing. The average estimate of discards from catches across the world is about 8%, but it is certainly far worse in Europe, and that is a result, as we have heard, of aspects of the CFP as it stands. Let us consider the prawns and shrimps that we eat on our table. For every tonne of shrimp that is landed, probably 10 to 15 tonnes of fish have been discarded. That is across the world—it is not just in Europe. It is unlikely that many people would accept a non-sustainably sourced prawn on their plate if they were aware of the overwhelming numbers that died to bring that prawn to their plate.
	Discards are an important issue not only in the EU but across the world, not just because the fish could be used but because we are damaging species by changing breeding populations and ecosystems.
	The motion asks the UK Government to develop a package of measures beyond which it would be impossible to go in considering whether to endorse a new EU fisheries policy.

Neil Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I generally welcome the motion and will be happy to support it, because it is absolutely necessary that we have a different approach to the common fisheries policy. I wish to draw the House’s attention to a report produced many years ago by a House of Lords Committee, which highlighted the need to apply science and technology—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention. If he wishes to draw the House’s attention to something, he can make a speech, but he cannot do so in an intervention, so we will leave it at that.

Alan Whitehead: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he wishes to intervene again briefly, I will give way.

Neil Carmichael: That is extremely generous of the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the House of Lords report was absolutely right to highlight the need for science and technology and draw our attention to the systems used in Norway?

Alan Whitehead: The answer to that very pithy intervention is yes. As we move towards a new EU fisheries policy, it is absolutely vital that we remove ourselves from all the baggage of previous fisheries policies, which, since the first one was introduced in 1983, have never contained an environmental, conservation or sustainability component. A few things have been added—rather like adding Dolby sound to Philips cassettes to try to make them work better—but basically the policy was designed simply to stop countries squabbling about who should fish where. In relation to what I said about the tragedy of the commons, that merely divides the commons between different people to carry on fishing in the same way, rather than moving the debate forward.
	It is essential that we have an EU fisheries policy that is fit for purpose for the world we now live in. That is the bottom line of the debate. That includes ending discards and introducing technology that ensures that what is caught approximates most closely to what is
	intended to be caught, for example by using different nets. It includes looking at science to secure the best way forward for reducing the collateral consequences of fishing. It includes no-fish zones, which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) referred to.
	It is an ambitious package of measures. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it must be our starting point if we are to have fisheries that are fit for the 21st century. If we continue with fisheries that are fit for the 19th century, the fish will have disappeared by the time we are not much further into the 21st century. I wish the Minister good luck in his endeavours, which I hope will be fruitful. It is encouraging to hear the difference in tone from the EU Commission, and if we can build on that tone, on the Fish Fight campaign, which I, too, congratulate Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall on bringing to the public’s attention, and on the head of steam that has built up to recognise that we have to make a step change, not a gradual change in fisheries policy, we will find that these debates have been worthwhile, and that the Minister’s success in achieving such changes on behalf of Europe will have been a triumph indeed.

Andrew George: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who was absolutely right to conclude by emphasising the importance, if we are to move forward effectively, of reducing the need to discard any dead fish in the sea. We need a more sophisticated package of measures, rather than the same blunt response to the blunt instrument of quotas, which caused the problem in the first place.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), before he leaves the Chamber for a no doubt well-deserved comfort break, on having brought forward the issue and on his persistence in raising it. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the motion.
	I also pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for having brought her great knowledge to bear and, in significantly difficult circumstances, raising the issue. She has warm support across the entire House for her contribution, and the House very much appreciates her widely acknowledged knowledge and expertise on the subject.
	I was born and brought up in west Cornwall in my constituency. My family had a fishing boat, but my father was primarily a market gardener, so I have some experience of the issue, although far less than my hon. Friend. Many members of my family are engaged in the industry around the coast of my constituency, and I do my best to keep in contact with them in order to understand the pressures of the industry, but that certainly does not compare to my hon. Friend’s expertise.
	A number of essential elements are required to move the issue forward and to make significant progress in addressing the concerns that have rightly been highlighted as a result not of only the Fish Fight campaign but of the many other campaigns that went before and highlighted precisely the same issues. I hope that the current process of reform, and the debate about the reform, of the common fisheries policy leading to 2013 will be more successful than the last.
	We have inched our way forward, but the EU is like the United Nations when it comes to treaties: trying to reach an agreement across states requires tremendous diplomacy as well as the campaigning skill and zeal of many people in order to ensure that messages are properly understood, and that there are constructive proposals as well as attacks on and criticisms of the existing scheme’s failures.
	In order to make such changes, there are a number of essential elements. First, we need to get right the management framework of the common fisheries policy, and it helps that we have moved the debate on in this Chamber from where it was five or six years ago, when my beloved coalition colleagues used to take the rather different view that we could unilaterally withdraw from the policy. The whole debate became a legal argument, which meant that we never had the right kind of environment—

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew George: I will in a moment, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is simply going to go back over that debate, and I just want to make this point to him. We did not have the environment that we needed to be able to have the kind of constructive debates that we now have about the management, technical and other measures that are required and can be delivered, although it takes some time. Because we could not legally withdraw from the common fisheries policy while remaining in the EU—it was technically impossible, and no one was proposing that we should withdraw entirely at that stage—we could not make that kind of progress.

Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend accept that six years ago his party’s policy was one of regionalisation of the common fisheries policy, and that securing the regional management that his party was promising was probably as extreme and impossible to deliver as national control?

Andrew George: Having given a warm tribute to my hon. Friend, I hate to find myself in significant disagreement with her. She is right that the Liberal Democrats have argued that we should have a more regionalised basis for the common fisheries policy; we have been consistent in that for the past 20 years. We have been not only consistent but right and effective, in that the regional advisory councils have now been established.
	The view of the coalition Government—we are in complete agreement between the parties—is that we need to strengthen the regional advisory councils to become regional management committees, in order to give fishermen, along with other stakeholders, significant power. With that power comes responsibility. If the fishermen themselves are making the decisions about the future management of their stocks and the framework within which they operate, they will be the losers if they fail to make any progress. We have succeeded in that fundamental principle. We are making that progress, and the next reform will see us move the agenda forward significantly and positively.

Sheryll Murray: My hon. Friend mentioned the regional advisory councils. That is precisely what they are—advisory, so no attention has to be paid to what they decide. That is not exactly what I remember his party promising six years ago.

Andrew George: This is turning into a more partisan debate than I intended.

Kelvin Hopkins: It’s your own fault.

Andrew George: I know; I blame myself. I apologise for having drawn myself into the very cul-de-sac that I was saying was the reason why we failed to make progress before.
	As a result of the regional advisory councils, we were able to develop measures such as the Trevose ground closure, around the north coast of my constituency, each spring, which ensures that large numbers of vessels are not going in and plundering the stocks in that area. We have seen a significant improvement in the health of several species following that measure. The proposal was originally made and instigated by local fishermen, but rolling it out required international agreement.

Barry Gardiner: I seek to bolster the hon. Gentleman’s position, not to attack it. Does he agree that if we are to have truly ecosystem-based management of stock, it must be based not on regional advisory councils but on regional management?

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman emphasises my point. We need to move from advice to management. We have a far too centralised common fisheries policy and, as we have been saying for decades, we need to decentralise it.
	The fundamental problem, as many hon. Members have said, is the blunt instrument of the quota system. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test implied, we do not want to replace that overnight with the blunt response of stopping all discards. That could have immediate catastrophic consequences. We need to move to a situation where there is no need for discards of dead fish from trawlers.

Alan Beith: I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point. In the Northumberland coast fishery, where most of the boats are day boats that do not travel far out, an immediate ban on discards would prevent people from catching other species. At the moment, a lot of haddock are being caught because they are plentiful. We could not stop all the boats from fishing completely because of the number of haddock they are catching.

Andrew George: I thank my right hon. Friend, who is assiduous on this issue and helps to emphasise the particular problems for day boats and inshore fisheries.
	There is also a problem with the illogicality of throwing back dead fish. No one quite understands the benefit of that. The only possible scientific benefit is that other fish might feed on those fish. As all those involved in fisheries management will understand, the problem is that to apply an effective fisheries management policy, one needs to be able to distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch. Of course, a lot of the by-catch is of a high marketable value. One has to query what would be the ultimate impact if one said, “We’ll stop all discards and you can land and market all the fish you catch, regardless, because we feel sorry for you and don’t like to think of you throwing back dead fish.” We cannot simply adopt, overnight, a ban on discards.

Sheryll Murray: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew George: I am sorry to say no to my hon. Friend, but I will not give way again, because of the time.
	I have mentioned decentralisation. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall rightly emphasised the importance of being able to extend the inshore management limit to 12 miles, so that only those with a historical entitlement from other fishing nations can fish between the 6 and 12-mile limits.
	It is important for fishermen and scientists to work together. That is increasingly happening, and it works well in other European countries. In successful fishing nations such as Norway and Sweden, fishermen and scientists work hand in glove all the time. That improves efficiency and effectiveness, and they have developed techniques that have taken them ahead and left us behind. The more we encourage a culture that enables fishermen and scientists to work together, the better it will be, because more trust will be established between the two, and there will be better assessment of stocks. We need to develop more effective methods of assessing stocks, because fishermen often rightly criticise the basis on which quota decisions are taken.
	A number of measures have been identified by Government and the fishing industry to help avoid discards in the first place. I have mentioned management methods such as temporary closures, for example in the Trevose ground, which can be very effective. In a question to the Minister this morning, I mentioned the worrying decision of the Cornish mackerel handliners not to pay their annual subscription of £12,000 to the Marine Stewardship Council because they do not believe that the benefits of membership are justified by the cost. They have also identified that another fishing method, the trawling and seining of mackerel in Scotland, is accredited by the MSC. They question that, because theirs is low-impact fishing and other types have a much higher impact.
	I look forward to the Minister’s response, although I may not be able to stay, because I have a train to catch at 6 o’clock. The hon. Member for Richmond Park has secured a very important debate, and I hope that, whatever basis we do it on, we shall decentralise the management of our fishery stocks.

Eilidh Whiteford: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) not just on bringing the debate before the House but on his wider ongoing efforts to bring attention to the need for sustainability in international fisheries. I know that he has played a key role in the Fish Fight campaign, bringing the scandal of fish discards to public attention, and I commend him for his efforts.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that under the current rules, fishermen have no choice but to dump fish, and that the underlying problem is the systemic failure of the common fisheries policy. I have the privilege of representing some of the UK’s most fishing-dependent communities, including Peterhead, Europe’s largest white fish port, and Fraserburgh, Europe’s
	leading shellfish port. Thousands of my constituents work in fishing-related jobs, whether onshore or offshore, in the processing sector and in other related industries.
	Fishing is at the heart of the identity of the communities around the Banffshire and Buchan coast, and for years people in those communities have expressed their anger, frustration and exasperation with the CFP and the disgrace of fish discards. Many of them have said to me how glad they are to see the issue finally getting the widespread public attention that it so deserves.
	Having tabled my amendments, I wish to make it clear that I am in full sympathy with the spirit behind the motion and that the amendments are intended to strengthen its wording and reflect the fact that discards are a symptom rather than a source of the problems, which rest squarely with the CFP. To end discards, we need to end the practices that encourage discards, and there is no real shortcut to that. In no way do I want to dilute the strong signal that the motion and the debate will send, but I hope that we will foster a more nuanced understanding of why discards occur and the range of measures that are needed to end them. We have had positive signals from the European Commission that it recognises the problem, but we need a lot more than rhetoric. We need practical solutions.

John Redwood: I am one of those in the House who have campaigned long, and so far unsuccessfully, to ban the atrocious practice of the discard of dead fish, with all the waste involved. From the hon. Lady’s experience of her important fishing community, can she tell us how much better it would be for her local fishermen if the practice were banned?

Eilidh Whiteford: It is very important that the UK Government avoid having the Commission make a knee-jerk response to the problem that could cause damage to certain stocks and jeopardise the livelihoods of fishermen who have already made huge sacrifices to put the industry on a sustainable footing. We only have to go to the ports of the north-east to see that the white fish fleet has basically halved in the past 10 years, and that is a huge sacrifice that the industry has made in order to be sustainable. We need to avoid the same top-down solutions that we have had from the EU hitherto, and we need solutions that come from the industry itself and from the communities that are most directly associated with it.

Angus MacNeil: I understand that in 2009 the value of discards was about £33 million—about a third that of the white fish that was landed. However, since 2008 the efforts that the Scottish National party Government have taken have seen discards decline at a greater rate than in any other country in the EU.

Eilidh Whiteford: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I hope to address it in my speech.
	Today’s debate gives us impetus for a different approach to fisheries management. We want to avoid, rather than replicate, the one-size-fits-nobody approach that has characterised the CFP for several decades and had a devastating impact on the communities that I represent and our marine environment.
	We need a greater role for regional management, and that is happening in fishing communities not only in Scotland, but in other parts of the UK and Europe. We also need longer-term management plans and meaningful stakeholder involvement. That is the way forward, and I hope the Government press that agenda in the ongoing and forthcoming European negotiations.
	It is important to recognise that discarding is a particularly big problem in mixed fisheries, where the rules and regulations simply do not reflect the reality of the eco-system.

Sheryll Murray: The hon. Lady’s amendment (a) would insert “practices that encourage”, but does she not agree that that would weaken the motion, because a motion for an end to “practices that encourage” discards is weaker than one that calls for an end to discards? If she genuinely wants a strong motion, she should accept that her words do not need to be included.

Eilidh Whiteford: I do not accept that. I tried to make the point that discards are not the problem, but the symptom of the problem. There is no simple solution to discards and no one reason for them.
	Perhaps the best way to explain that is with concrete examples. Fishermen who fish for prawn, megrim or monkfish off the west coast of Scotland are very likely to pick up by-catch of cod, haddock or whiting, which is a protected stock. As the fish mix freely and do not understand the EU CFP, they do not present themselves in the quantities and combinations required by the catch composition rules. That is the nub of the argument.
	That is only one reason for discarding, but it is by no means the only reason. There are a range of reasons. The most obvious one, perhaps, is lack of quota and the quota problems that hon. Members have highlighted. Another common problem is that vessels can catch fish below the minimum landing size. There is a real danger in landing juvenile fish that have not yet reproduced. Creating a market for those fish would be detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the stock. That is why a blanket ban on discards is too simplistic a solution, although I do not wish to undermine or diminish the need to end or reduce discards. High grading—when fish of no or low market value are discarded when caught—is another good example of a damaging side effect of the current regulations. I shall not repeat the points that other hon. Members have made on that.
	Just as there is no single reason for discards, there is no single solution. Rather, a variety of measures are necessary. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) pointed out, Scotland has been at the forefront of bringing to an end practices that encourage discards. The Scottish Government, industry and other stakeholders have worked together to make the Scottish fishing industry the most conservation conscious in the world. Currently, more than 50% of Scottish fisheries by value are now certified, or are in the process of being certified, by the Marine Stewardship Council, including 90% of the pelagic sector.
	The hon. Member for St Ives addressed the issue of smaller versus larger boats. There is no doubt that the pelagic vessels in the Scottish fleet are huge, but they catch some of the most sustainable fish stocks in the EU. In addition, those boats are tied up in port for many weeks at a time and fish sustainably. They find a
	market for their fish and have a viable business, which is at the heart of a sustainable industry. This cannot be about artisanal fishing only, because communities and thousands of jobs in small businesses in local economies depend on commercially and economically viable fishing.

Zac Goldsmith: I merely wanted to take the opportunity, before the hon. Lady’s speech comes to an end, of acknowledging her amendments and recognising why she wants to include those words in the motion. I hope she agrees that the inclusion in the motion of the derogation, which was a last-minute inclusion, goes some way to assuring her that we are calling not for a blanket ban on discards, but for a qualified ban.

Eilidh Whiteford: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. I appreciate the efforts that he has made to accommodate the practical issues that face our fishermen, who are currently in difficult economic times.

Andrew George: I am sure that there is nothing to be gained from generating a dispute when fishermen share the same objective of achieving a sustainable industry. The amount of fish that Cornish mackerel handliners catch is equivalent to what one purse seine can catch in just one week. There may be issues with by-catch or other things, but the hon. Lady will surely understand people’s concerns about the impact of fishing on that scale compared with the low impact of the handlining method.

Eilidh Whiteford: Clearly that is fishing on a very different scale. The fishermen whom I represent are providing an important food source. This is not an either/or issue; rather, there is room for everybody, small producers and large producers alike. There is enough to go round—enough fish in the sea, shall we say?
	I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mike Park, the chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, who just last week was awarded the WWF’s 2011 global award for conservation merit in recognition of his efforts to promote sustainable fisheries. I am sure that Members across the House will want to join me in congratulating Mr Park on receiving such a prestigious international award. It is a well-deserved recognition of his leadership and a testament to the efforts of everyone in the Scottish fleet who has worked so hard to put the industry on a different and more sustainable course. The award is also a tribute to the work of WWF Scotland, which, in confounding the stereotypes of conservationists being pitted against the interests of fishing communities, has engaged with the industry constructively, recognising that sustainable fisheries must be about sustainable livelihoods for fishermen and sustainable, thriving fishing communities. I commend WWF Scotland for that.
	Some of the innovative and pioneering measures that have had such a dramatic and demonstrable effect in reducing discards in Scotland offer practical ways forward in the wider European context. The use of selective fishing gear is perhaps the most obvious way to reduce unwanted by-catch, and is a key way to prevent discards. Since 2007, a voluntary system of real-time closures has been in operation in Scottish waters as a means of protecting concentrations of cod. Scotland was the first
	country in Europe to introduce such a scheme. When skippers encounter a high abundance of cod, they are encouraged to notify the Marine Directorate and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, and the relevant area is closed for three weeks at a time. That not only helps to protect the stocks, but helps to improve the accuracy of the science, which is often called into question.
	Other important initiatives have included banning high grading in the North sea and the pelagic sector, and the use of jigging machines in the pelagic sector to enable catches to be sampled before the nets are lowered. The catch quota has been mentioned. It was not without controversy when it was first introduced, and many people were sceptical about it. However, although nobody would claim that it is a full solution to the problem in itself, applications to take part in the scheme are now exceeding the places available. It is clear that its success is starting to win over those who doubted its efficacy in the early stages.
	The common fisheries policy is well past its sell-by date. Minor tinkering is no longer an option. We badly need a well-managed industry working on a regional basis with long-term planning, and with fishermen—the key stakeholders in the industry—fully brought into the heart of the process. If Ministers can deliver such a system in the European Union, they will be performing a great service to those who have for a long time called not just for an end to discards, but for an end to the system that causes them in the first place. I commend the motion to the House.

Oliver Colvile: I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on selecting the motion and my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on convincing the Committee to discuss it. This has been a useful and helpful debate. I also welcome the decision to hold the debate in the main Chamber. Many of us were concerned that the main fishing debate was not held here last December, and I hope that that can be put right later this year. I also hope that the Government will support the motion, so that we can send a clear, unanimous message on discards back to the European Commission. That would strengthen the hand of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) when he negotiates with what I perceive to be our European competitors.
	I have campaigned on the issue of bringing our fishing waters back under UK national control, and on the issue of discards, in my constituency for the past 10 years as part of my campaign to sit on these green Benches. During the past decade, I have spoken to the academics at Plymouth university, the local fishing industry and the many experts who work in those agencies that make Plymouth one of the major marine scientific research global players. They say that, by bringing UK waters back under national control, we can conserve fishing stocks and potentially discourage the large Russian and other foreign factory ships and industrial trawlers that come into our waters and do so much damage to our fish stocks and our fishing industry.
	I want at this stage to pay a real tribute to those people who, as the nursery rhyme goes, “put the little fishies on our little dishies”. Fishing is one of the most
	dangerous industries in our country. Our fishermen go to sea each day, in all kinds of weather, day and night, in winter and summer, to put Britain’s No. 1 traditional signature dish on our plates. It is ironic that, only recently, the House has been served a very real reminder of just how dangerous fishing is. I want to express my own personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, whose husband died in such tragic circumstances a few weeks ago. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for coming to a packed funeral, where the local fishing communities on both sides of the Tamar river came together to pay tribute to one of our top fishermen. The Minister’s attendance made a real impact, and may I take this opportunity to thank him for buying me a drink afterwards as well?
	However, I do not need to be reminded that sacrifices such as Neil Murray’s are a regular occurrence among the peninsula’s fishing communities. Anyone who walks down the Barbican in my constituency will see a large wall covered in memorials to Plymouth fishermen who were killed trying to feed us on a regular basis. The last time I went out on a boat, it was shortly after a force 7 gale and I have to admit that I was a little bit ill on several occasions. I learned that anyone who is able to get their boots off in time once they have fallen overboard will probably survive for about three minutes before almost certainly dying either by drowning or of the cold. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will speak to our hon. Friends in the Department for Transport to ensure that no more lives will be lost because of policy changes relating to our coastguards.
	I am not going to pretend that I am as well informed on this issue as others, including my very good and hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, who has demonstrated her excellent understanding of the issues that face the industry. I am aware, however, that fishing is a totemic issue in the south-west, and that it focuses attitudes towards our membership of the EU. One of the biggest mistakes that Britain made in joining the European common market in the first place was to sign up to the common fisheries policy. It was designed to make European fishing grounds a common resource by giving access to all member states.

Angus MacNeil: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the initial mistake, but surely that mistake has been compounded, decade after decade, by successive Conservative, Labour and coalition Governments who have done absolutely nothing to correct the error that was made almost 40 years ago.

Oliver Colvile: I do not disagree, but I hope that we now have an opportunity to turn the tide as far as that matter is concerned.
	The stated aim of the common fisheries policy is to help to conserve fish stocks, but I believe that in the current form it is a wasteful policy which damages the environment and our fishing industry. It determines the amount of fish that each national fleet can catch. Employment in the industry has declined dramatically, especially here in the United Kingdom, and, despite reforms, fish stocks have continued to fall. I have always understood that the requirement for Britain to sign up
	to the CFP was a last-minute act; the six countries of France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and Italy put it in at the last moment. This country was so keen to join the European Common Market, as it was then, that Geoffrey Rippon, who was leading the whole debate and our negotiations with our European competitors, agreed that we would sign up, much to their surprise. At the time, few envisaged that Austria, which I remind hon. Members has no coast, would also have the opportunity to vote on the CFP when it joined the European Union in 1994.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman makes a classic, tremendous point: Austria has a say but Scotland does not. Does he understand why I might be a Scottish nationalist?

Oliver Colvile: I do not, as it happens. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that this situation becomes a bargaining tool for other bits of policy which can be played around with.
	Over the last few days, I have been inundated with e-mails and letters from people calling on me to support this motion and Channel 4’s Fish Fight campaign, and I suspect that a large number of other hon. Members have too. I give my support very enthusiastically. The idea that fishermen, who do such a dangerous job and are not particularly well paid, are fined for landing fish which do not fit a specific regulation and are thrown back into the water, is a total scandal. I welcome the Government’s commitment to fight for changes to the size of nets, but I hope that the Minister will press our European competitors to reform the CFP further, to allow us to decide which fish are taken out of our seas and who takes them out, and to stop this discarding policy.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in the House on this issue, and I commend and thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for securing the debate. Fishing is a very important factor to my constituency and although I extended this invitation to the Minister last year, I again invite him to visit the fishermen in Portavogie to get a better idea of what that means. I am sure that he will be anxious to take up that invitation and I look forward to his visit.
	As we know, the fishing industry might not be a big contributor to the gross national product, but it has a big effect on some villages. Back in 1985, 260,000 fishermen in the European Union caught some 8 million tonnes of fish, and at that time, more fish were imported than exported. Things had changed by 2007, in that the catch was down and the number of people involved in the fishing industry had reduced—that was a concern. The EU fleet has 97,000 vessels of varying sizes. Fish farming produced a further 1 million tonnes of fish and shellfish and it employed another 85,000 people. So fishing is clearly an important sector in parts of the United Kingdom—it certainly is in the area that I represent.
	I commend the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who is no longer in her place, on making a valuable contribution to the debate. She has many friends in Northern Ireland and she is oft in our thoughts and oft in our prayers. Fishing represents no
	more than 10% of local employment in any region of the EU, but in some areas, including the one I represent, it is a very important factor. Fishing features highly in the employment available in my area and in the village of Portavogie, so it is important that Community funds have been made available to fishing as a means of encouraging regional development.
	I also commend the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on the amendments she tabled and I am glad that they have been selected, because they would add to the motion and they make a valuable contribution.
	Fresh fish sales have fallen, while demand for processed fish and prepared meals is growing. There has also been a shift towards more supermarket sales rather than restaurant sales. Employment has fallen over this period, mainly due, in my opinion, to European policy. That is why I am particularly pleased to speak in the debate. Rather than there being a fall in availability or demand, it is quite clear that the demand remains.
	The EU is the world’s second largest fishing power after China. I put a question about China to a DEFRA Minister this morning. China seems to be batting up fish all over the world, putting pressure on our own industry. More than 2 million tonnes of fish products were exported in 2006, but more than 6 million tonnes have to be imported to meet EU needs. The competitiveness of the EU fish industry has also been affected by our own bureaucracy and the fact that our fishermen are simply not allowed to fish, so cannot provide the fish needed for the supermarkets.
	With fuel costs so high, the end price is higher than for countries not within the EU, which also compounds the problem. We are constrained by red tape yet we have to compete with those who are able to fish as much as they want. It is hard to be competitive with people who have freedom to expand their business as they desire and as the need dictates, as opposed to being so restricted.
	I recall that a Member spoke earlier about the Spanish armada. Well, the Spanish come regularly to plunder the Irish seas and other coasts around Great Britain. It sticks in the craw of many of us when we see that happening.
	It is clear that something must change—and that something is the common fisheries policy. However, Europe does not see that the regulations need to be relaxed—indeed, it sees quite the opposite. It is so concerned with the so-called “scientific” reports that say there are no fish reserves that they will curb fishing completely, which will undoubtedly kill off any chance of fishermen in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom being able to make a living. The EU wants to cut the size of fleets and the time fishermen spend at sea. It is important to try to get a balance.
	The Commission says there are still too many vessels chasing too few fish, and that ecological sustainability must take precedence over economic or social factors. In other words, just because a community has traditionally depended on fishing, it does not mean that it can continue to do so. That is a key issue for me as the elected representative for Strangford. It is particularly hard to take when I am consistently assured by fishermen that they can see schools upon schools of fish in the sea, yet they are not allowed to touch them.
	I have spoken on this policy before, wearing other hats. I am a member of Ards borough council and a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, so this issue
	is close to my heart. It is a pleasure to be here today to speak and co-operate with my English, Scots and Welsh counterparts to ensure that this unfair practice, which does not allow our fishermen to catch our fish in our sea, is brought to a close. This is a United Kingdom notice of motion, representing all the regions of the UK. In my opinion, the Irish sea has fish enough for our boats—an opinion backed up by the Fish Producers Organisation as well by as the Trawlermen’s Association.
	The Minister will, I know, take this matter on board, put the work in and stand up tall to ensure that the fishing industry within the Province will not be subjected to a process that will mean no fishing industry at all in five years’ time as a result of European regulations. Something bred into people in our fishing villages will no longer be an option due to EU interference. That is what some of the fishermen are telling me.
	We need a sustainable fishing industry. When I contacted one fish producer organisation, its representative reiterated to me that quayside prices, increasing overheads—especially fuel costs, to which a new “green” tax has recently contributed another 2p a litre—as well as the plethora of fishing regulations all challenge fishing vessel operators and are leading fishermen at least to consider throwing in the towel.
	One of the main problems faced in places like Portavogie in my constituency is that most of the men worked on the boats and the women worked in one or two fish factories, but those factories have recently closed. Things are changing on the sea and on the land as well. Jobs are hard to find. Young people who relied on fishing in the past are now going into the civil service—which is also facing cuts. If the fishing industry has to bear any more pressure, there is every chance that more fishermen will leave their boats. There comes a point at which the sustainability of the industry comes into question.
	In 2010, we in Northern Ireland ensured that we were at the forefront of innovation. That has been seen in the delivery of state-of-the-art new pelagic trawlers that represent the pinnacle of Europe’s fishing industry, in the significant investments in the onshore processing sector, and in investment in several more modern prawn trawlers. All that represents a vote of confidence in the future of this home-grown, privately owned industry.
	I am informed by local industry organisations that UK fisheries Ministers tell the industry that fisheries management decisions must be based on the best available science, and so they should. Although we continue to have certain issues with the science, especially with regard to the abundance of cod in the Irish sea, it is not so much the science that presents us with a problem as the European Commission’s interpretation of it. Many of the Commission’s TAC proposals have less to do with negative science than with the delivery of a political aspiration. In the Irish sea, the science states that stock has increased by 8% in the past two years.
	There are many other issues with which time does not permit me to deal, such as cod recovery. What is clear, however, is that the opinions of fishermen and fish producers must be listened to and acted upon. I hope that the motion will bring that about. The actions of the Faroe Islands and Iceland of late have shown that the EU is not in control of fisheries. It must adopt a sensible approach and take account of the views of those who are on the seas every day and whose livelihood depends on stock replenishment. They know the seas better than any flown-in scientist ever could.
	The long-term cod recovery regulation that was agreed in November 2008 contained a commitment to reviewing the plan after three years. I ask the Minister to ensure that that review now begins. The industry was encouraged to hear recently from DEFRA officials that the review should be “fundamental” in nature and should not, as the Commission has previously suggested, examine the implementation of the 2008 regulation. Such a fundamental review should be delivered as a matter of urgency, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point when he sums up the debate.
	Recent media coverage has highlighted concern about the level of discards among European fishing fleets. Let me stress that that concern is shared by locally based commercial fishermen. As other Members have pointed out, they are not ignoring the problem by any means. They want to sort it out: they want a balance as well. It should be borne in mind that much discarding is a result of EU regulation. I have received numerous e-mails from environmentalists and concerned constituents asking me to ensure that there is an end to the senseless waste of fish and the ignoring of fishermen’s voices. As every Member has said today, it is a scandal, a shame and immoral for fish to be thrown back into the sea when they could be used.
	While fishermen in other areas continue to explore ways of reducing discards of cod and to monitor their positive results through, for instance, the CCTV and catch quota trials in the North Sea, Northern Ireland fishermen working with fisheries scientists have delivered their own results, and, as other Members have mentioned, the results are similar in Scotland. However, the work will not stop there. A project aimed at a further reduction of discards of whiting and haddock is already being planned. Fishermen are clearly leading the charge, but the fear persists that the European Commission will interpret their results—together with the year-on-year reductions in landings of cod that are due to reductions in the amount of cod that fishermen are permitted to land by Europe—as evidence that fewer and fewer cod are left in the Irish sea. Let us ensure that the evidence base is in favour of fishermen and what they do.
	The current policy is not good for fishermen or for the sea. It is long past time that the House and its Members took decisive action to deal with the situation and to secure the right of fishing folk to fish the sea, make their living and raise their families without the unnecessary interference of the EU. I firmly support the motion, and heartily congratulate the Members who have enabled us to debate it. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and to supporting him in Europe when he does his best for the fishing industry and the United Kingdom.

Alan Reid: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on tabling the motion, and congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing it to be debated on the Floor of the House. Fishing is an important subject, and it is important for us to debate it on the Floor of the House rather than, as happened last December, in Westminster Hall.
	It is clear that discarding must stop. We must end the practice of returning to the sea fish that will not survive. Discarding fish is not only a moral and environmental issue; it is a needless waste of valuable economic and food resources. It also results in considerable amounts of data being lost to scientists, who are trying to calculate fish stocks accurately in order to inform fisheries management.
	As has been emphasised throughout our debate, discarding is not caused by bad behaviour by fishermen. It has been forced upon them by a series of unworkable EU regulations. When calculating annual quotas, the European Commission assumes that a very large percentage of the catch will be discarded back into the sea, but it has no idea of the actual proportion. Various estimates have been made, but they have always had a wide margin of error. Because the discards are not measured, we have no idea how much dead fish is thrown back into the sea. European fisheries are currently regulated by total allowable catches or TACs, but they do not in any way put a cap on catches. They measure and place a cap on landings of fish at port; what is measured is not the amount of fish that are killed, but the amount of fish landed at the port. The system therefore serves to obscure the scandal of discards.
	The vast majority of discarding occurs in mixed fisheries. That is because the current regulations are unable to cope with mixed fisheries. The main control of activity is single-species TACs, but that is overlaid with other, complicated regulations, such as catch compositions, days at sea and effort control. These complicated regulations do not mirror the contents of the ecosystem. Fish do not swim around in shoals neatly made up of exactly the same proportions of the different species as laid down by the Commission. The fish are not co-operative; they are caught in very different abundances and combinations from day to day. As a result, the requirement to discard to meet the rules is created.
	In pursuit of solutions, there has been a great deal of innovation and experiment. The Scottish fishing industry has led the way, such as through the development of selective nets to let unwanted fish go and “real time closures” to avoid catching such fish in the first place. Although a lot of good work has been done at the local level in many parts of Europe, what has been lacking are Commission initiatives to address the regulatory faults underlying the mixed fishery problem.
	There is widespread agreement that regional control is the way forward. Central control from Brussels has failed. The regional advisory councils or RACs are a significant step in the right direction, but they are only a first step. They must develop into decision-making bodies, and common fisheries policy reforms must include allowing the current list of initiatives to be developed and translated into local regulations that best fit local circumstances. All the stakeholders in European fisheries must strive for that.
	We must have science-based, long-term management plans that provide a secure and sustainable future for fishing communities throughout Europe and for the environment. The current regulations that force fishermen working in a mixed fishery to discard must be changed, such as by allowing fishermen to match quotas with catches through an improved, transparent system of quota transfers.
	If we have better regulation that is determined at a more local level and science-based, long-term management plans, we can make our fishing industry sustainable for both fish and fishermen. If I may conclude by amending a quote by a former eminent Member of this House, we must be tough on discards, and tough on the causes of discards.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Luton is land-locked and nowhere near a fishery, but I have a passionate interest in and concern about fishing and fish stocks. Indeed, the first question I asked of the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time concerned the common fisheries policy—he said that he had expected the question to come from his side of the House, rather than mine. However, I have been pursuing unashamedly the abolition of the CFP, and if not that, we should at least give notice that we plan to seek a derogation for Britain, because the fact is that our seas have been overfished. We have had possibly millions of tonnes of discards—certainly hundreds of thousands.
	It is impossible to monitor what is done by fishing vessels from other countries. The only way to overcome that problem is to get back Britain’s historic fishing waters within the 200-mile limit—the median line. British vessels could then fish in those areas, French vessels could fish in French areas and Spanish vessels could fish in Spanish areas. They could have their own fishing grounds the same as we do. The contrast, of course, is with Norway, where there are no discards and no overfishing, all vessels and landings are monitored and there is no problem. It manages its fish stocks properly.

Sheryll Murray: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that Norway does not have such mixed fisheries as we do in UK waters, so the conservation measures that the Norwegians pursue often would not work in the mixed fisheries in UK waters.

Kelvin Hopkins: I defer to the hon. Lady, who obviously has an advantage over me in having knowledge of the detail of fishing. However, I am confident that if there was less fishing in British waters, there would not be a problem with shortages and overfishing, and that the need to disaggregate fishing would not be so great if there were plenty of fish, no overfishing and no diminution of fishing stocks.
	The general point, however, is that member states ought to be able to manage their own fishing waters and protect them from the depredations of other nations. I have been reading in the Library that there is a multibillion pound industry in pirate fishing across the world. I am sure that we are a law-abiding country and fishermen know that their catches are monitored, but can we trust other nations to do the same even within the EU? There is the suspicion that other nations do not monitor their landings and their catches like we do, and it would take a long time for me to be persuaded that some of those nations do it as well as we do.

Oliver Colvile: Is one of the problems not that although we are very good at imposing and policing regulation, places such as Spain are not as good because the regulators are some way away from the ports?

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. I was going to say that I agreed with every word of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. It was a very good speech. I should also compliment the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who moved the motion, which I hope we can all support, and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who made a brave and wonderfully informative speech. I felt that I was being educated about the fishing industry while listening to her. It is a rare privilege for us to have someone with her expertise in the Chamber.
	I believe that we are considering reform—we have tried it before, and no doubt incremental changes will continue to be made—but we will not win the battle against overfishing until the CFP is history. As I have said before in the Chamber, I think that the Government should give notice that at some point Britain will seek a derogation from the CFP if it is not abandoned altogether. Our nation has possibly the largest coastline and fisheries in the EU, and decisions are being made about our fishing industry and livelihoods by land-locked nations such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Austria that have no particular interest and can be easily bought off in any European Commission vote.

William Cash: As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that as well as this having splendid motion it is equally important, whatever the consequences of the vote, that we ensure we apply our own sovereignty if the Government, the European Commission, the European Union and the European Court of Justice are not prepared to heed the message that the House sends out? We must assert our sovereignty and override the European legislation where necessary.

Kelvin Hopkins: I personally agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman, but we might have some difficulty persuading a majority of the House to agree with us. I believe that the European Commission and the European Union will not shift until they have the sense that Britain is serious about wanting to abandon the common fisheries policy or seek a derogation.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend will know that I am quite a strong pro-European, but fishing gets me nearer to his camp than I might normally be. My constituency is right in the middle of England, nowhere near the sea, but my constituents care about this issue. They certainly care about discards and about the quality of the sea and of the fish in it. Why can we not get an agreement that works for this country within the European Union? Let me remind my hon. Friend that before the European Union existed, it was a total dog-eat-dog mess. It might not have been dogfish, but it was dog eat dog and it was worse than it is now.

Kelvin Hopkins: Going back to what happened before the common fisheries policy might not be the best idea. We are now living in an age in which we are more sensible about these things and I would like to think that we would have an industry that was properly regulated by our Government on behalf of our consumers and our fishermen.

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the latest device from Europe to get their hands on the fish from our seas—I am speaking particularly of Scotland? The internationally tradeable individual transferable quotas will mean the slow buying off of fishing rights for future generations by big industry fishing, which would mean that future generations on the Scottish coast might see fishing happening around the coast but would have no right to go near it. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of the approach, which is new today from the European Union, and it must be resisted by all quarters of this House at all costs.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I have the BBC news sheet in my hand, which is headlined, “EU fisheries reform would ‘privatise oceans’.” Things will be handed over, no doubt, to Spanish and French fishermen who will have long-term quotas and who can do what they like outside our control.
	This is not about nationalism. It is about every nation being responsible for managing its fisheries. The only way to guarantee that they will be managed properly will be for each nation to know that it has to look after and husband its own stocks and fishing industry. If people know that they can cheat by stealing fish from other countries, possibly not even doing discards, doing secret landings and cheating the system, I have no doubt that they will do it.
	Just recently, the British public have shown themselves to be strongly incensed by any kind of cheating. Members of the House, some of whom have suffered the penalties of the law, have known the anger of the British people. I think that the British people can be just as angry about cheating on fishing, and the only way to overcome that is to re-establish national fishing waters for all nations in the European Union and for each nation to manage its own fishing stocks, its own fishing industries and the fishing boats that fish within those waters.
	Billions of pounds of fish have been lost to Britain. Being in the common fisheries policy has not only had an economic cost to Britain but has been an environmentally damaging experience. One does not necessarily want to push for a nationalistic view, but the reality is that we have been ripped off by the common fisheries policy and we have a massive balance of trade deficit with the rest of the European Union. I would like to think that the motion could go someway towards helping to redress that balance.
	I am doing this not because I am a little Englander, or even a big Englander or a big Britisher. I care about fish stocks, and I care about the fishing industry and about making sure that the marine environment is protected for the long term. The only way to do that is by having countries manage their own fisheries.

Therese Coffey: Thank you for your patience with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was contributing to the debate on education in Westminster Hall, which I helped to secure, and being in two places at once is not an ability that I can establish. I have enjoyed the debate that I have listened to so far and I intend to read the report of it as soon as it is available later tonight.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate along with other hon. Members. I admit that I was not one of those who signed the early-day motion because I do not sign early-day motions. There was a clause in it about using enforced temporary closures to manage fisheries of which I could not have approved because such practices have led to problems in my constituency, with the under-10 metre fleet lurching from crisis to crisis because of temporary closures here and there. I am delighted that this wonderful motion does not contain that clause, so I can give my full support to the intentions behind it.
	It is fair to say that discards are a disgrace. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has previously related to the House the success of Project 50% and I will not steal her thunder because I am sure she will speak about it again, but I wanted to say that we can learn from some really good examples around the British isles of how to do something about discards. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) has said, this is about addressing local regulations. Fishermen in my part of the world often catch far more than the quota they are allowed but will land only what they are legally allowed to land. Sadly, the discards—the smaller fish—end up going back into the sea. Fishermen need to secure the maximum price for their fish, so they pick only the best and the rest sadly go to waste. We need to get around that problem. I do not blame them for doing that because that is their business and that is all they are allowed to do. Unlike during world war two when fish was the only major foodstuff that was not rationed, our total allowable catch is going down nowadays.
	I said I would keep my comments short, but I want to talk about the common fisheries policy. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was right to suggest that we should have control of our fisheries. Constituents find it very difficult to understand that countries with no sea or fishing whatever should have an equal voice to that of the United Kingdom on the common fisheries policy. I wonder whether the Minister would consider afresh working with colleagues in the European Union and saying that the CFP does not work at all so we need to start again. What matters is not the politics of fish but the fish, fishermen and constituents. To that end, I suggest that we should scrap the current Fisheries Council and reconstitute it to include only countries with fishing fleets in the European Union. Frankly, if countries such as Austria can use their place on the Council as a bargaining chip for other European negotiations, that short changes our country.

Barry Sheerman: Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that we should take all international agreements, whether they are European or international—at a time of threat from global warming, when we need sustainable solutions for our oceans and seas, which must be reached through co-operation—and say that everyone can do as they like? Is she suggesting that we should say that Iceland can hunt whales and everyone else can catch what they like?

Therese Coffey: That is not what I am suggesting at all. I am suggesting that the artificial Fisheries Council is making policy, but that some of the member states on it have no interest in fishing whatever and therefore simply trade their votes for influence over other arrangements. I appreciate that my suggestions are radical, but is this
	not a debate for ideas? Of course, I am not the Minister—I am not the person who has to go to Brussels to do the negotiations—but if someone keeps walking down a street and falling into a hole and does not change their route they will for ever be trying to get out of the hole. Speaking for myself and other hon. Members present, I think that something we can do as new politicians is say that if fisheries policy has not worked and stocks are not recovering we should try something new.
	I say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that rather than limiting ourselves to working only with the European Union we should work with non-European Union countries—Iceland, Norway or other neighbouring countries—to tackle the wider challenges.

Barry Sheerman: rose —

Therese Coffey: I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I am afraid that I will not cede the floor to the hon. Gentleman.
	Let us develop the debate by considering what we can do locally. The creation of inshore fisheries and conservation authorities is a useful step in the right direction, but they must take fishermen with them. I did a PhD in chemistry, so I accept that evidence is available. Science shows that if there is evidence, one can propose a theory around it. Often, people have an argument about whether that theory is right, and one must continually build evidence. An important part of that evidence should be the knowledge and understanding of the fishermen who fish those waters every day. It is frustrating when fishermen say that there are plenty of fish out there, or they are told that they can fish for cod, when the cod were there three or four months ago but it is now too late.
	Fishermen have to be involved, and science has to be involved. Sadly, fish have become subject to politics. Regrettably, every year we seem to have a crisis about quotas, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister fought the fight to get more fish for our fishermen, so that our ever diminishing industry manages to stay alive for another season. I hope that we can end this ridiculous quota swap and give fishermen a guarantee of a sustainable future.
	I was a little surprised by reports that fishermen are going to be paid to fish for plastic, rather than fish—that is one of the ideas coming from the European Union—which would be rather disheartening for our inshore fleet. I will not give another analogy, but I imagine that the fishermen with whom I am in touch would say that if all that they have to do is fish for plastic, they might as well put their boats aside.
	I shall bring my comments to a halt, because I believe that there are plenty of people who have great experience of fishing. I do not pretend to do so—I speak only for a small number of fishermen in my constituency, but they are culturally and socially important. If the United Kingdom loses the battle for fish, it will be a sad loss for our country.

Barry Gardiner: One hundred and fifty years ago, in 1861, using wooden boats and primitive technology, UK fishermen caught 12 to 15 times more cod in the North sea than they do today with
	sophisticated sonar to track the fish and extraordinarily advanced gear and nets to catch those fish. That is why this debate is important.
	At the heart of the motion is the demand that CFP reforms adopt
	“an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management”.
	Some people may misinterpret that as putting the benefit of the fish before the benefit of the fishers, but without sustainable fish stocks there is no sustainable fishing industry. The history of our coastline, sadly, bears witness to that, as fishing communities from Stonehaven to Newcastle, from Grimsby to Cornwall, have declined over the past century.
	I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for pressing the issue both inside and outside the House, and to the GLOBE secretariat, whose work on a global oceans recovery strategy has been under way for the past two years as part of the International Commission on Land Use Change and Ecosystems, which I chair. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that regard. The Minister has co-operated with the GLOBE commission, and I am delighted that he will respond to the debate. I am sure that he will wish to be constructive, as always.
	Last night I attended the launch of Project Ocean at Selfridges. The Prince of Wales opened proceedings, followed by a private party attended by Elle Macpherson, the folk rock band Noah and the Whales—[Hon. Members: “Whale!”] It is not my normal Wednesday evening activity, and I have no doubt that I was invited only to add a bit of glamour to the event. How extraordinary that fish discards have now become so sexy. I pay tribute to Selfridges and to the work of the Zoological Society of London. I pay particular tribute to the work of Professor Jonathan Baillie and Professor Alex Rogers of Oxford university, not only for the sound science that they have brought to Project Ocean and their work on CFP reform, but for helping to popularise it in this way.

Cathy Jamieson: I am terribly disappointed that I was unable to see my hon. Friend adding glamour at the event he referred to. Would he give some message to my constituents, who are particularly concerned about discards, on how Project Ocean will deal with that problem and what it can add?

Barry Gardiner: I am very pleased to do so. There are three key areas of discards, which are often not well understood: over-quota discards, which are calculated to be about 22%; undersized discards, which are calculated to be about 24%; and non-commercial discards, which are calculated to be about 54% of discards. I will deal with each of these in turn, but first I want to talk about the importance of the ecosystems-based approach.
	The ecosystems-based approach is fundamental to sustainable environmental management. It establishes a strategy for the management and sustainable use of natural resources by considering them in the context of their role in the entire ecosystem. The current EU common fisheries policy and the EU marine strategy framework directive already commit the EU, in principle, to this ecosystems-based approach. The tragedy is that that has not been reflected in practice.
	True ecosystems-based fisheries management would require systemic reform through the introduction of a regionalised management framework. A regionalised management system within Europe would divide the EU fisheries into management regions according to ecosystems, rather than nations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) suggested. Unfortunately, fish do not carry passports about their person. They do not know when they are travelling from one nation’s waters into another’s. Therefore, one must look at the ecosystem and not simply the national boundaries.

Kelvin Hopkins: My simple point is that nothing will happen in terms of the proper management of fisheries without self-interest—the self-interest of the member states and of their fishing industries. If a simple regional and scientific basis is used, that essential self-interest will not be built into the system.

Barry Gardiner: I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point, because that is exactly what I wish to challenge. It seems to me that we can assure the fishing industry and fishers that there is real self-interest in promoting this approach.

Neil Parish: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Gardiner: No, I am already pressed enough for time.
	Certain decision-making powers would be devolved to regional management bodies, in consultation with local stakeholders, in order to tailor the application of central policy objectives for EU fisheries to the specifics of each ecosystem. A fully regionalised management system would include the following features: quotas allocated on the basis of ecosystem regions in order to manage fishing pressure according to the necessities of the different ecosystems; regular scientific assessment of all marine species, not just fish stocks, within a given eco-region to establish the impact of fishing on the ecosystem as a whole; quota allocation on the basis of eco-regions with different licences used in different ecosystem regions and no transfers between the regions.
	The discards in the North sea are between 40% and 60% of total catch, while in other European fisheries, such as that for west of Scotland cod, they can total as much as 90%. The vast majority of fish discarded overboard of course die. In an effort to limit fishing to sustainable levels, EU regulations under the common fisheries policy prohibit the landing of commercial species above a given annual quota. However, in practice this often results in the discarding of thousands of tonnes of saleable fish—the over-quota discards—as fishers are forced to cast overboard their excess or non-target catch before landing, so as not to contravene EU law.
	The result is a policy that fails to prevent fish mortality above levels deemed biologically sustainable. That is a particular problem in mixed fisheries—the majority of EU fisheries—where fishers will catch more than their landing quota for one species as they continue fishing for others that swim with it, in order to maintain fishing
	throughout the year. The Government estimate that over-quota species account for about 22% of English and Welsh discards.
	The introduction of catch quotas in place of the current landing quotas would make fishers accountable for their total catch, rather than for what they land, thereby eliminating the legal catch and discard of over-quota fish. The current CFP also prohibits the landing of quota species below a certain minimum landing size—MLS—to ensure that they are not caught before reaching maturity, thus preserving the reproductive capacity of the stock. In practice, however, many under-sized fish are still caught and simply discarded at sea. An estimated 24% of discards are quota species below legal MLS, so too small to land. The introduction of minimum catch sizes in place of minimum landing sizes has been successful in Norway in incentivising the use of selective gear in fisheries and minimising the catch and mortality of under-sized fish.
	An estimated 54% of English and Welsh discards are of non-commercial species caught as by-catch. Stimulating the creation of new or stronger markets for under-utilised sustainable species such as dab and coley in UK fisheries could result in the elimination of unnecessary waste, greater profits for fishers and a reduction in fishing pressure on other more popular and over-exploited species. We need to be careful, however, that that policy does not encourage the creation of markets for species whose population could not support a sudden increase in harvesting.
	There is currently no obligation to conduct regular stock assessments for most non-commercial species in EU waters, as they are not subject to quota restrictions, so there is little understanding of the impact that increased fishing of them would have on their stocks and on the wider ecosystem. The first priority of any policy that aims to eliminate discards and improve demand for under-utilised species, therefore, should be to mandate regular stock assessments for all species, with a view to introducing management plans, including catch quotas, for all species caught in EU fisheries.
	At the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development in 2002, the EU committed to achieving a maximum sustainable yield for all fish stocks by 2015 at the latest, but in 2010 it estimated that 72% of its fisheries remained overfished, with 20% fished beyond safe biological limits, risking the wholesale collapse of those fisheries.
	The EU marine strategy framework directive requires that all EU fisheries achieve good environmental status by 2020, which includes the attainment of sustainable fishing levels for all stocks. The European Commission requests scientific advice for the establishment of fisheries management plans on the basis of sustainability, but the European Council is under no obligation to adhere to that advice when agreeing total annual quotas for stocks. The result is that the European Council sets total allowable catch limits that are on average 34% higher than the scientifically recommended sustainable limits.
	Ensuring that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels is an absolute prerequisite of the future profitability and survival of EU fisheries. By requiring the delivery of that target by 2015, we will ensure that the EU fulfils its international and domestic commitments to achieve sustainable fisheries and end overfishing.
	A legal requirement to end overfishing of all fish and shellfish by 2015 will necessitate the following key measures: first, rendering scientific advice binding, thus preventing quotas from exceeding biologically sustainable limits; and secondly, introducing stock assessments and management plans for all fish and shellfish, including non-commercial species that are currently unmanaged, in order to establish sustainable limits for harvesting.
	Co-management is an approach whereby Government authorities involve local communities and other stakeholders in management decision making, monitoring and surveillance. The approach aims to encourage co-operation and a shared sense of responsibility, and it has been shown to improve compliance with regulations as well as to improve the effectiveness of management measures, because it draws upon community knowledge to address local socio-economic and ecological issues.
	The establishment of regional advisory councils is cited as a key success of the 2002 CFP reform, because they have served as forums for stakeholders to inform policy implementation at the regional level, but they have no decision-making powers.
	Small-scale and artisanal fishing represents a vital link between the industry and historical coastal fishing communities, and often utilises lower-impact methods—more environmentally sustainable methods of fishing that draw on local traditional knowledge. A future common fisheries policy must reverse the balance of incentives by allocating access rights to fisheries on the basis of environmental sustainability, so giving priority to vessels that utilise selective gear and low-impact methods of fishing. By enabling the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation for UK and foreign fishing vessels within its inshore fisheries, without recourse to the European Commission, we would regain powers to determine and manage our coastal marine ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) spoke of the importance of ITQs—individual transferable quotas—and the problems that will arise from them. Under this proposal, which is probably the most dramatic in impact of any EU proposal, skippers would be guaranteed shares of national quotas for periods of at least 15 years, which they could trade among themselves—even, if the relevant national Government agree, with fleets from other countries. This is already practised on a smaller scale in several EU member states, including the UK, but it has been taken much further in other countries.
	A global survey published three years ago showed that fisheries managed using ITQs were half as likely to collapse as others, which is one of the reasons why the Commission is so enthusiastic about them. However, the blanket nature of its proposals gives rise to serious concerns, and I echo those that the hon. Gentleman expressed. Ecologically, ITQs diminish overfishing and seek to protect the sustainability of fishing in the area concerned, but experience shows that they can give rise to the privatisation of fisheries. That is a very serious point, which the Minister has to take on board.

Angus MacNeil: rose —

Barry Gardiner: I have no more time left, so I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. The wind-ups are going to start at half-past 5. Seven people wish to catch my eye, so if they speak for a shade under six minutes, that means that everybody will get in. I will rely on your generosity for that. I call Eric Ollerenshaw.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to keep to my limit.
	I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate, particularly for the way in which it has been conducted and the experience that has been brought to it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), I do not claim to be an expert in this field, but I do represent the town of Fleetwood. This year marks 175 years since its foundation, and for all those years it has been synonymous with the fishing industry. Indeed, in the 19th century Fleetwood was at the end of the west coast main line, principally to enable fish landed there to get to Billingsgate as fresh as possible. Being new to the fish world, as I call it, I have had to learn at first hand the stories and legends from fishermen. Believe me, some of those are long and involved, but I sat there listening patiently. As other hon. Members have said, the hurt that they feel at the tragedy that they have endured through the devastation of their once-proud industry is very apparent.
	Fleetwood, more than most, has seen its fishing industry destroyed in the 20th century. The port is now down to a few dozen registered boats with perhaps two or three boats landing fish, mainly shellfish. The crazy irony of the history of fishing in this country is illustrated by the fact that Fleetwood’s success still lies in fish processing. Hundreds of tonnes of fish now arrive in Fleetwood by truck from every port in England because of the large scale of Fleetwood’s fish processors, which are still on the docks, but the docks do not land any more fresh fish. That is what we have come to. It is difficult to explain the impact that this decline in fishing has had over the years on the morale of a town where most people claim descent from the original dozen fishing families around whom it developed. These intricacies go back years. Indeed, with the good advice of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), for which I am very grateful, I am still dealing with compensation claims that go back to the Icelandic cod wars.
	Like other Members, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on the record for her advice. She has been unstinting in her help, and in sharing her knowledge and passion for the subject. She has taught me a great deal.
	This debate is rightly focused on discards, an issue that has united fishermen and the public like no other issue in recent years. It is incredible that from primary school children through to politicians, everybody sees the sense of the argument about the scale of the discarding, the moral condemnation of it, and the economic wrongs it has created. As an ex-history teacher, I compare it to prohibition, because it is a policy that has been so counter-productive in terms of its original aims that it will go down in the history books. I fully support the
	motion, given that discards in the North sea alone equate to some 500,000 to 800,000 tonnes a year. That is waste on an incredible scale.
	Discarding is also wrong because there appear to be solutions, and I am pleased that the Government have supported some of those. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned the pilots for cod quotas, which have prevented discards. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall mentioned the intricacies of net size, which again have prevented discards. I have looked at the 50% scheme in Brixham, which has received widespread praise. All those solutions have presented incentives to fishermen, as conservation is in their interests.
	I believe that this campaign has demonstrated, once and for all, that fishermen and the public understand the need for managed conservation. I hope that the success of the pilots and the public support will provide the Minister with backing when he goes to Brussels. He might not achieve the scrapping of the common fisheries policy, which many of us want, but he will now go armed with the support of this House and of a country united in a demand for real reform.
	As hon. Members have said, discards are just the tip of the iceberg of things that have wrecked the fishing industry. Fishermen in my constituency are fighting for realistic compensation for the increasing areas of Morecambe bay being filled with wind turbines, with the support of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. It has amazed me that there is no statutory compensation, and that every fisherman has to fight individually for compensation. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby reminded us, marine conservation zones are spreading, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is on the fishermen’s backs, fishermen are involved in consultation, and they are fighting for compensation and quotas. One sometimes wonders what time fishermen have left actually to go fishing, in between all the demands placed on them.
	We are getting to the point where so many Departments have a slice of our seas that perhaps we need a Secretary of State for the seas. Perhaps I would not be as radical as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, but something major needs to happen if we are to alter the decline that we have seen, and the casual treatment, by previous Governments of all parties, of the great seas around us. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) talked about farmers. I have always wondered how we can manage to protect the environment in national parks successfully, and to sustain real business in which farmers are a fundamental part of saving that environment, when we cannot manage to do that out at sea.
	The Fish Fight has brought together fishermen, processors, retailers, consumers and—dare I say it?—politicians of all parties, as we have seen today. Its success may well be the signal that we can finally start on the long road back to protecting one of our greatest resources: the seas that make these islands to which we all belong.

George Eustice: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate on the important issue of fish discards. I rarely
	sign early-day motions, but I felt compelled to support his recent motion on fish discards, because the way in which we kill unnecessarily and throw back fish on an industrial scale is an absolute scandal that, as many Members have said, has continued for far too long.
	We should recognise that this is not a new problem. The environmental consequences of the common fisheries policy have been recognised and argued over for more than 20 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) said. I remember speaking about the scandal of fish discards as long ago as 1999 when I was a candidate for another party.
	We should note, though, that some modest progress has been made over the past decade. The volume of fish discarded was actually reduced from 2002 to 2008. However, with some estimates suggesting that we are still throwing away more than half of all the fish caught, it is clear that we are still only scratching the surface and that significant changes are required.
	Three key factors are driving the practice of discards: the lack of a market, the quota system and the problem of undersized fish. On the first of those, DEFRA estimates that more than half of all the fish that are discarded are those for which there is currently no market. That is not the fault of the CFP, but it is the largest single area in which we could make a difference.
	One of the most important outcomes of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s “Hugh’s Fish Fight” series was the call for, and the beginning of, the creation of demand for other fish species. When I recently visited Falfish, a fish processor in my constituency, it reported a significant increase, for instance, in demand for pouting. Although far smaller than cod, it has a similar texture and can be used as a substitute. We all have a role to play in creating a market for currently unfashionable fish—consumers by being more adventurous, the industry and processors by doing more to market less popular fish and the Government through projects such as their Fishing for the Markets scheme.
	The other causes of fish discards relate to the CFP. DEFRA figures estimate that 22% of all discards are fish for which there is no quota, and that 24% are undersized. I have to say that I think that last figure understates the problem, because it is calculated on weight rather than the number of fish. Addressing those two problems is where we need meaningful change.
	As I have said, the problem with the CFP is that we have talked about it for a long time but nothing has changed. If one thing has really been clear over the past 20 years, it is that the most successful policy innovation has taken place when national Governments have been free to experiment with new ideas and approaches. We have a bit of a problem with the structure and culture of the EU, because it does not lend itself to an evidence-based policy approach. All too often, policy development becomes a mere negotiation and the outcome is a policy based on the lowest common denominator rather than one informed by the power of ideas. The EU is currently considering another round of CFP reform, and we will soon find out whether it is now fit for purpose or whether important issues such as fisheries policy require a quality of thinking and reasoning that is simply beyond institutions such as the EU.
	Another problem is that a one-size-fits-all policy cannot cover such a wide area. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said that fish do not
	carry national passports or recognise national borders, but they do not carry EU passports or recognise EU waters either.

Angus MacNeil: It is also misleading to talk as though fish all behave in the same way. Iceland talks about migratory fish, straddling stocks and non-migratory fish, so the idea that all fish are the same is highly misleading. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to make that point, because I did not have a chance when the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) was speaking.

George Eustice: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I could not agree more. It is true that fish do not recognise national waters, but it is important that we have a tailored local solution to protect our ecosystems. We should not get bogged down in whether waters are national or European. That is why, like the hon. Member for Brent North, I am attracted to the idea of breaking up the current structure of the CFP and putting in place a regionalised management system. It could retain the common objectives of protecting the ecosystem, having sustainable fishing and minimising discards, but the delivery of those common objectives would vary in response to local realities.
	I wish to say a little about some of the conclusions that we can draw from successful experiments that other countries have come up with. First, Norway has found a way of dealing with the discards caused by fish caught over quota by allowing fishermen to land those fish but paying them only a fraction of the market price. Let us consider that. Secondly, Norway and Scotland have both had success with real-time closures, with areas being closed to fishing when there is a problem with excessive by-catch. That creates an incentive for the industry to use netting gear that reduces by-catch, so let us consider that, too.
	Thirdly, our fishermen in the south-west are involved in a really successful project, Project 50%, which has brought together fishermen and scientists to develop new fishing practices that have dramatically cut fish discards. Let us consider that, too. Finally, Cornish fisherman led the way by having the first no-take zone within European waters, so that there is a sanctuary for spawning fish. We should also consider that.
	If we are serious about developing a sustainable approach to fishing, we need to change the basis on which quota is allocated. Rather than simply basing it on some historical formula or rights, we should reward good fishing practices by giving the most sustainable fishermen the most quota. That could act as a powerful incentive. Those who adopt good fishing practices that substantially reduce by-catch will be allocated more quota, as will producer organisations that are the most successful at creating markets for unfashionable fish species, whereas producers who turn a blind eye to the need to reduce discards and continue as if nothing has changed will face losing some of their quota.
	If we adopt such solutions, we can improve the CFP and dramatically reduce our fish discards.

Sarah Wollaston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on his tireless efforts to reduce fish discards.
	All hon. Members understand the importance of fishing to our local economies, but I represent Brixham, which lands the highest-value catch in England. That represents more than £17 million for our local and national economy. That is real jobs, not just at sea but on land, and a very valuable export market.
	I thank the fisheries Minister for his recent visit. He is now aware of Project 50%, which is being carried out in Brixham, to which many hon. Members have paid tribute. I should like to recognise the work of Darren Edwards, the net designer, and scientists at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. Shaun Gibbs, who presented the results of Project 50% to Maria Damanaki, and other trawlermen, have fitted cameras to their trawlers to monitor catches, so that we can get away from the existing quota system. They are taking part in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea area 7e sole catch quota trial.
	I also recognise the work of south-west fish producers, who are working with the Government through the Fishing for the Markets project to look at how to achieve better sales for unusual fish, such as pout, whiting, gurnard and dragonet. I hesitate to give anyone cooking advice—my family certainly do not miss my cooking back at home—but all one has to do with gurnard is stick it in the oven with a bit of butter and rosemary. Nothing else is required, and it is absolutely delicious. I commend gurnard to the House!
	Fisherman in Brixham and surrounding areas have made extensive efforts to reduce discards—all hon. Members will recognise that—but we can imagine their frustration. They have reduced their fishing effort and taken part in a series of trials to reduce discards, at great personal cost, and improved the sustainability of the mixed fishery in the English channel, only to find that Dutch fly-draggers that have fished more than their quotas and destroyed their fishing grounds in the North sea are coming over and having the same impact in our waters. That is extremely demoralising for our fishermen.
	The CFP is undoubtedly outdated and unsustainable, but we must be careful how we implement measures on discards. I was reassured that the wording of the motion was altered so that we recognise that not all species that are thrown back into the sea die. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who is very experienced, drew attention to the fact that if we landed all the crab that we catch, crab would become extinct, which is an important point. We must also recognise the efforts made in the lobster fisheries, which now notch rather than land buried, egg-bearing lobsters, which has greatly increased fish stocks locally. Therefore, we need to be careful how we talk about discarding, and look at all the alternative measures that have been outlined, which I hope the Minister will consider.
	I know that the Minister works tirelessly on behalf of our fishing industry, but we would also like to see some fairness. I am in the difficult position of representing both the under-10 and the over-10 metre fleets, which clearly have different needs, as we all recognise. However, if we are to have fairness, their efforts must not be undermined by foreign vessels. I am sure that all Members would ask the Minister to press home the point in Europe that this is the only way forward. However, I know that many other Members wish to speak, so with that I will take my seat.

Sarah Newton: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on securing this debate. May I also associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) about our hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall?
	In the limited time available I would like to support the part of the motion that talks about necessary reforms to the policy affecting small-scale fishermen. I would like to share with the House the example of a group of fishermen in my constituency which I hope will underline all the valuable contributions that we have heard from across the House—something that, in itself, underlines the fact that we need to make more decisions here in the UK about our fishing fleet.
	I represent a maritime constituency. Ensuring that we manage our marine environment and support sustainable fishing is vital to me and my constituents. We have perhaps the most sustainable fishery in Cornwall, at the Fal river oyster fishery, which is officially known as the Port of Truro oyster fishery. It is the last oyster fishery in Europe harvested under sail, by Europe’s last commercial sailing fleet. We have native oysters in the River Fal, which have been harvested in more or less the same, highly sustainable fashion, without the use of mechanical power, for more than 500 years.
	Byelaws introduced by the Truro Corporation back in the 19th century protect the Fal’s beds from over-exploitation by limiting harvesting to non-mechanical means. That means relying on wind and tide, with sail-powered working boats towing the dredges across the beds in a fashion known as “drift”. Many of the historic vessels used have been on and off the water for more than 150 years, and are used for fishing in the winter and racing in the summer. Further up the river, hand-rowed punts are used with the same dredges. Any oyster that is smaller than the statutory two and five-eighths of an inch in diameter is discarded and returned to the river bed to grow on. After the oysters have been harvested, they are purified and sold all over the world. They are very popular in France, although more than 10,000 oysters are consumed during the immensely popular annual Falmouth oyster festival, which is held each autumn.
	The number of licences issued by the Port of Truro harbour authority fluctuates each year, but in the 2010-11 season, 45 licences were applied for by 32 separate people. There were 12 sailing boats and six punts fishing over the past winter. A licence is needed for each dredge. The season runs from October to March, with fishing strictly limited to between 9 am and 3 pm each weekday, and 9 am and 1 pm on Saturdays. The most recent statistics show that during the 2009-10 season, some 750,000 million oysters were caught.
	Typically, oysters are sold by fishermen to buyers at 25p an oyster. Buyers sell them on to shops, which sell them for about £1 an oyster. Despite the cost to hon. Members who enjoy eating oysters, the fishermen make a modest income. I hope that hon. Members can see that, through the measures taken in Cornwall, we have managed to keep this sustainable fishery. There is a proactive relationship between the harbour authority and the oyster fishery to manage and improve the nursery beds for future years.
	Members with a lot of experience will recall that marine fisheries licences are required by all UK vessels fishing for profit. They were introduced in 1992 as a method of enforcing EU regulations for sustainable fisheries management. Captain Brigden and Carrick council made representations to the Government of the day in 1993, and secured an exemption for boats under 10 metres fishing under sail or oar. This meant that such boats would not require a marine fishing licence to fish, and the exemption covered the boats of the Truro oyster fishery. Now, the EU is reviewing the exemptions that have been granted to the fishery, and possibly others.
	What would be the impact of ending the licence exemption for the Truro oyster fishery? Fishermen would have to meet the substantial one-off costs of applying for a marine fisheries licence. The cost depends on the size of the vessel, and for the average 28-foot oyster fishing boat, it would be about £4,500. This would be in addition to annual fees and local fees. This overhead would put many oyster fishermen out of business, so this EU measure would have the perverse outcome of putting out of business some of the most highly skilled and sustainable fishermen in Europe.
	Learning to fish for oysters by hand and under sail takes many years to master. The fishermen work very hard in the winter and most have other seasonal work during the rest of the year. In a good year, the fishery can provide a reasonable living for the experienced men who are prepared to put in the time and effort in all weathers in order to make a sustainable living. The extra licence fees will put an end to centuries of oyster fishing on the Fal.
	The renaissance of locally produced and traditional foods has been a great source of satisfaction for many people around the country. Locally grown food is also healthier food. In October, Falmouth hosts the oyster festival, which helps the whole community to celebrate our heritage and sense of place, as well as attracting tourists from all over the world. Just last year, Rick Stein opened an oyster bar in Falmouth, so the oyster fishery makes a wider, significant contribution to the local economy of Falmouth and Cornwall, and contributes to the reputation of Cornwall as a producer of high-quality food. I urge the Government to ensure that decisions about the licensing of our small vessels are taken in this country, to ensure the highest levels of environmental protection and sustainable food production for our country.

David Morris: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for highlighting this important issue. For many years now, the common fisheries policy has blighted coastal towns such as those in my constituency around Morecambe. It might surprise hon. Members to know that, although I represent a seaside resort and coastal town, I have learned from recent discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that I represent very few fishermen. But let us be clear: my predecessors would have been able to say that they represented hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of them. This illustrates the economic decimation of fishing that this policy has created, and, even in communities like mine, it has been accepted. For years we complained, in my view rightly, but our complaints
	fell on deaf ears in Brussels and we lost this important form of employment. We have now accepted this and moved on.
	However, my hon. Friend raises the important environmental issue that remains outstanding. It would be quite wrong to empty our coastal waters of fish because of these quotas. It is so sad to see fishermen throwing tonnes of fish into the sea because it is illegal to land them under EU rules. I do not blame the fishermen themselves; they are trying to make a living against a difficult backdrop. I blame the common fisheries policy and the European Commission. It is hard for me to believe that the Commission is ignorant of the environmental vandalism that it has unleashed on our waters. The fact is that it does not even care.
	Given that the EU does not want to make the situation better, it must fall to us in this country to do something about it. We must demand a significant reform or, better still, the scrapping of the common fisheries policy. Call me old fashioned, but I would like to go back to the time when only British and Irish vessels could fish in the Irish box. When that rule was abolished, Spanish industrial trawlers mounted their ruinous campaign against our fishing stocks—a campaign that has arguably moved to the coast of Africa and ruined the livelihoods of fishermen in places such as Somalia. Many believe that that has turned Somali sailors to piracy.
	In summary, my view remains that the British fishing fleet has been treated badly. My community has lost an important industry, but we must not allow fish stocks to be destroyed for future generations. I was proud to sign the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, and I am delighted that this has become a debate for the whole House to participate in. My sincere hope is that we stop this great environmental crime before its effect cannot be undone.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for seeking this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is important for me to speak in it because the future of the fishing industry is of crucial importance to Lowestoft in my constituency, where fishing has a long and proud record.
	Last October, I secured an Adjournment debate on the future of the inshore fishing fleet on these coasts. The crisis facing the industry at that time and the solutions remain the same, so I will not repeat them, as they are on the record. There have, however, been four significant developments since last October.
	First, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign has brought into the nation’s living rooms the scandal and obscenity of discards. As a result, our inboxes have been full. The nation has spoken; it will no longer put up with this practice.
	Secondly, it is clear from her speech on 1 March that Commissioner Maria Damanaki understands the problem and appreciates that drastic action is required. She said:
	“Let’s be honest, if we continue this it is like treating a serious illness with aspirin”.
	There will be vested interests opposed to the commissioner as she seeks to reform the common fisheries policy next year. Our Members of the European Parliament need to give her the support she needs and deserves.
	Thirdly, my hon. Friend the fisheries Minister has launched his own consultation on the future management of the domestic fisheries in England. This contains some positive proposals. It is encouraging that DEFRA appears to accept that fishing stocks are a national resource and that no third parties have acquired any proprietorial rights.
	The final development since last autumn is that the Lowestoft industry continues to decline. The fishermen are allowed to catch fewer fish; they have extra costs to bear; and it is an increasingly difficult struggle for them to carry on. Only last month, the Europa café in the fish market, which has served breakfasts to fishermen for decades, was forced to close due to a continuing decline in business.
	It feels as if an ambulance is now on the way, but I worry about whether the patient will be alive when it reaches the scene of the accident. The sands of time are running out for Lowestoft fishermen. I support the motion. It is important that none of us sits back and rests until a fishing regime that has almost destroyed the British fishing industry is itself discarded and thrown overboard.

Neil Parish: rose—

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman will have to finish his speech at half-past 5.

Neil Parish: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to speak in this debate; I could not get out of the Finance (No. 3) Bill Committee until 4 o’clock. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and I also pay tribute to a great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who has huge experience of the fishing industry. She has been able to return to the House in hugely difficult circumstances; our hearts very much go out to her.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said that he had talked about this issue back in 1999. I was then fighting for the Conservative party, while he was fighting for another party. I recall saying to him afterwards, “Do see the light; come over to the Conservative party.” I do not know whether it was all due to me, but he obviously did see the light and came over to the true cause.
	I was elected to the European Parliament and sat on its Fisheries Committee for some 10 years. In all that time, I opposed the common fisheries policy. Let me explain why. The CFP is a little bit like communism: it is a wonderful idea in principle, but in practice it just does not work, as I shall explain. If we have a common resource in Europe, every country thinks that some animals are more equal than others and are entitled to a greater proportion of the fish.
	I will name some of those countries. Spain is one of them; it goes all around the world looking for fish, fishing off Africa and goodness knows where, causing an awful lot of problems. We must face up to the reality. We need our fishermen to be able to sign up to a policy to get rid of discards and to manage fisheries. If they believe that managing their fisheries sustainably will provide the fish for them to catch, they will sign up to it.
	I am sure that that is very much what the Minister will be aiming for. However, if a common fisheries policy means that we sustain our fish stocks but some other nation then comes in and steals them, will we be inclined to adopt such conservation measures?
	Fishermen have to go out to sea and deal with the vagaries of the weather, and then they have to deal with the vagaries of the common fisheries policy. There is, for instance, the nonsense of “quota species”, which means that those who catch too many of a particular species must throw healthy fish overboard. When big boats throw discards into the sea, they often putrefy on the sea bed, which can have huge consequences.
	We must take a sensible attitude, and I am delighted that the Government are doing so. Now is the time to say to fishermen, “Let us have a look at the way in which you fish. Let us ensure that when you bring your fish back, you are able to sell it.” Many Members have made the point that we need to eat more species of fish in this country, but there is another point to be made, and I have made it in the House before. During the period of the common fisheries policy, much money has been wasted when boats have been decommissioned and new boats have been built with larger engines that may enable more fish to be caught. When fish are landed that are not fit for human consumption, they can be made into fishmeal and fed to farmed fish. That may not save a vast amount of money, but it will give fishermen some incentive to land those fish.
	Another point that has been made today is that until we stop discarding fish, the scientists will not know what is actually being caught, so we will not know what the stocks are. That is a central part of the argument for the banning of discards.
	I also think that the argument between large and small boats must be settled. We cannot allow big companies to buy up huge amounts of quota and then force out many small fishermen. Those fishermen must have a livelihood. We must face up to the reality: it is a case of the haves and have nots, when what we want are sustainable fisheries.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neil Parish: No, I will not, because I have not much time left.
	I have had 10 years’ experience in Europe, where many warm words have been spoken by commissioners in the past about discards. There have been improvements such as the provision of better fishing tackle and Project 50% in Devon, but the Commission and Europe must be driven hard to make absolutely certain that we secure change—that we stop discarding fish, and all the fish that are landed are either eaten by humans or made into fishmeal to feed farmed fish.
	There is a limited resource of fish in the world—there are no two ways about it—and we are consuming more fish than are being bred in the seas. If we do not act, we will destroy our own resource and our own ecosystem. I wish the Minister great success in Brussels. He must take not only his briefcase but a handbag and a concrete block, because he will need them when he is negotiating. It is necessary to negotiate very hard in Europe in order to get anywhere. I look forward to the Minister’s coming back with everything that we want.

William Bain: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on his great efforts and the fine words with which he opened the debate, and I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on its wisdom in granting such an important debate. It has reflected the huge interest shown by the more than 674,000 people who have already signed the Fish Fight petition, and the others in our country who want to see a radical change to the EU common fisheries policy.
	Labour Members recognise the strong consensus, both in today’s debate and in the wider Fish Fight campaign, that now is the time for EU fisheries Ministers to turn fine declarations of intent into a clear programme for change. The common fisheries policy must be made fit to meet the challenges of protecting the biodiversity of our seas and oceans, placing the sustainability of the fishing industry on a long-term footing, and securing greater regional management of EU fisheries waters, and we must introduce an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries, to tackle the root causes of the immoral waste of fish currently discarded at sea.

Angus MacNeil: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, one of the problems with the CFP is that nobody is in charge, so there is horse trading between competing interests. Unless that changes and somebody is put in charge—as is the case in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes—the problem will not go away. Unless the introduction of regional management leads to such problems being addressed, we will be in exactly the same mess as we have been under the CFP.

William Bain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The UK and other states that are in favour of reform must build alliances—such as with the southern European countries, who have in the past been resistant to change—so that there is genuine momentum and a sense that reform is being, and will continue to be, pursued by all 27 member states. In 2009, Scottish fishing vessels discarded almost 28,000 tonnes of fish, representing a quarter of the entire whitefish catch in Scotland. That demonstrates the seriousness of the need for reform.
	I commend the contributions to the debate of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who have over the years been consistent in their trenchant critiques of the CFP. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby has also been a huge champion of the fishing industry in his years as a Member of this House. I also commend the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who referred to the need for the introduction of long-term quotas, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who talked about the need for fish stock sustainability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who talked passionately about the need for an ecosystem approach to fisheries.
	It was particularly good to see the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in the Chamber, and to hear her speaking with such passion and authority about this subject, to which her community and family have contributed so much. I also commend the remarks of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), who
	talked about the need for catch quotas, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who referred to the need for a package of reforms and a framework of change, and the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid). They referred to the social and economic importance of the fisheries in their communities, and the moral imperative for action that this time will result in reform. They put their arguments with great vigour and force.
	Global fish and seafood consumption is increasing. The US consumes almost five times more fish than a century ago, and China is consuming almost five times more seafood than in the 1960s. It has been estimated that capture fisheries contribute up to $240 billion per year to global output in direct and indirect economic benefits. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation found in its report, “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010”, that the fishing industry supports the livelihoods of about 540 million people, or 8% of the world population. Yet concerns about biodiversity and the condition of our marine environment have grown. OCEAN2012 has estimated that half of the fish consumed in the EU comes from waters outside the EU, through distant-water fleets and a growing reliance on imports.
	In 2004 the Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that discards amounted to 7.3 million tonnes or 8% of total global fish catches, although on another definition of by-catch, it might involve in excess of 20 million tonnes per year. At last June’s EU Fisheries Council, Commissioner Damanaki set out the case for the most sweeping changes to the CFP since its inception. Those changes were based on an assessment that the current system, as last reformed in 2002, was top-down, short-termist in its effects on the fishing industry and weak in its protection of at-risk species. In particular, the system of total allowable catches, which was introduced in 1983 for each commercial species of fish and which was subdivided into quotas for individual member states, has proven grossly inadequate. It led in 2008 to the permitted TACs being on average 48% higher than scientifically assessed sustainable levels.
	The CFP is also unresponsive to changes in fisheries practice, because it is linked to the relative proportions of species fished as long ago as the 1970s. In mixed fisheries it is hugely wasteful and leads to the discarding of unacceptable levels of whitefish in order to comply with the quota rules after one species quota has already been exhausted. Across the EU, nearly half the whitefish and up to 70% of flatfish are discarded. Recently, and particularly in her statement this March, Commissioner Damanaki has pursued a new settlement that will build upon catch-quota trials that have proven successful in substantially reducing discard levels in Scotland and Denmark among pelagic fisheries. There is also the prospect of an extension to other fisheries, including demersal mixed fisheries, in the second year of any new CFP.
	The Opposition welcome the lead that successive Governments and devolved Administrations have provided in extending the use of longer-term catch quotas and
	supporting the stronger involvement of fishing communities in the management of quotas and fisheries waters. However, we believe that a stronger impetus is required to deal with the root cause of the scandal of discarded fish and by-catch: the delay in the introduction of an EU-wide ecosystem approach to fisheries management. The Commission has established that 88% of EU fisheries stocks are being fished beyond sustainable levels, and that 30% are near to collapse. The introduction of ecosystem management in this cycle of CFP reform is obligatory under the EU’s integrated maritime policy and is strongly linked to the marine strategy framework directive’s overarching commitment to the achievement of good environmental status. It is strongly supported by the Commission’s green paper on CFP reform, and has proven successful elsewhere in restoring fishing stocks in large-scale fisheries in California, the north-east of the United States and parts of Australia.
	The introduction of ecosystem management would balance environmental, social and economic concerns and involve a range of policy changes, including the introduction of financial incentives to reduce the pressure on stocks of species nearing over-exploitation; further action on ocean acidification, which particularly threatens shellfish stocks; the regional management of fisheries waters; fishing area closures; the incentivisation of new technology to monitor what is being taken from the sea and landed on fishing boats; and the use of more selective nets and fishing gear to reduce levels of by-catch of younger fish and other species. The multiple small trawl nets now used to catch prawns in the North Sea, for instance, have led to a 50% reduction in discarded fish.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North pointed out, in Norway the use of minimum catch sizes has proven successful in reducing levels of discards and fishing of undersized or juvenile fish. However, OCEAN2012 has recommended an alternative approach: the introduction of a minimum marketing size that would still constitute a strong disincentive for the sale of juvenile fish. It also raises the significance of applying new bans on discards and by-catch to EU fishing fleets operating in third countries or distant-water fisheries.
	Key to the success of such a system of fisheries management would be the greater involvement of the fishing industry in devising such schemes at a regional level and reporting on their effectiveness and compliance, together with improved monitoring of ports. As well as a prohibition on discards at EU level, however, over-fishing must be addressed. Simply permitting all caught fish to be landed and sold without proper enforcement may lead to the catching of undersized fish, with the further depletion of fish species that could thereby emerge. In the past, however, with cod, fisheries closures have led to displacement of fishing to adjacent areas, so any successful package of fisheries closures this time would require the active involvement of the fishing industry. There is support across many member states for the principle of introducing rights-based management of fisheries as a means of tackling overcapacity, although there is understandable hesitation about introducing a scheme of individually transferable quota rights that could see large-scale companies exert excessive dominance over the market.

Eilidh Whiteford: Does the shadow spokesperson share my concern that the privatisation of our seas through individual transferable quotas would inevitably over
	time lead to concentration and consolidation in the industry in such a way as to undermine these efforts in the longer term and hugely damage fishing communities?

William Bain: There is a real danger of that occurring, which is why I would refer the hon. Lady to the speech given by Commissioner Damanaki in Berlin in March. She reflected on and took on board the concerns that the hon. Lady has expressed and we wait to see how they will be phased into the reform proposals that are to be discussed in July.
	The EU needs a common fisheries policy and it requires one that meets that challenges that the present policy has failed so abjectly to address. With a strong motion passed by this House today, concerted action by the European Commission and member state Governments, we can turn intentions into deeds worthy of the cause raised in the Fish Fight campaign. Let us work for an ecosystem approach to fisheries, let us introduce a regionalised structure to the common fisheries policy, let us establish long-term catch quotas, and let us provide incentives for new nets and new technologies. By those means, we will tackle the root causes and end the scandal of discarded fish that has so appalled so many people in this country.

Richard Benyon: I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), who speaks for the Opposition, for continuing the bipartisan approach on these matters. The relationship is challenging but it is vital that we continue what happened under the last Government and recognise that we are dealing with an industry in crisis and a marine environment that desperately needs the smack of firm decision making. It is great to have his support.
	I welcome the debate and I believe that it firmly places the Backbench Business Committee in touch with issues that are of concern to our constituents. I welcome the contributions and hope to respond to many of the points later. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for the way in which he introduced the debate and I hope that we can all support the motion tonight.
	The debate comes at a crucial time. The conscience of the nation has been moved by the sight of perfectly edible, quality fish being thrown into the sea, dead. That is an abomination in a hungry world, I am sure everyone agrees. That is the power of television. Most of us knew that it was happening, but few of us had seen it—it was happening over the horizon—but it has now been brought into people’s homes and they are outraged. What if half the lambs we slaughter in this country had been dumped on the side of the road? There would have been riots on the street. Now people know what is happening and that is a tribute to those who brought the matter of discards to the public consciousness.
	The debate also comes at a crucial time because there is a window of opportunity to reform the common fisheries policy. I have been a Minister for only a year, but my assessment of the art of government is that one
	needs to know the difference between what one wants to change but cannot and what one wants to change and can, and to focus one’s energies on the latter. If I focused my energies on the former I might satisfy some of the hon. Gentlemen who have contributed today, but I would not deal with the problem that faces our marine environment, our fishermen and the coastal communities they support.
	I might not be a rabid Eurosceptic, but I am no friend of the common fisheries policy. However, it is not the fact that it is common that is the problem—it is the policy that is wrong. As we have heard—the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) made this point very well—fish do not respect lines on maps. Many of the stocks that our fishermen exploit spend part of their lives in other countries’ waters. Our fishermen have always fished in other countries’ waters in the same way as other countries’ fishermen had historic rights to fish in our waters before our accession to the European Economic Community in 1972. I could spend a lot of time discussing that, but I was 11 when it happened and I prefer to deal with the here and now—with what I can do and what we can achieve.
	A point that has been made by several hon. Members on both sides of the House is that we have to look at this issue in terms of an ecosystem approach. Whether we were in the EU or not and whether we were in the CFP or not, we would need a shared legal framework to manage our fish stocks. Our focus should be on getting the common framework right, which means getting rid of unnecessary and over-detailed regulation and managing stocks on a regional or sea-basin basis. It means giving fishermen clear entitlements to fish stocks and giving them a stake in the long-term health of those stocks.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Benyon: I am quite pressed for time and the hon. Gentleman has had quite a lot of air time, but if there is time later I am sure that the House would be delighted to hear him make his point again.
	Getting the common framework right means integrating fisheries management with other marine environmental policies and applying the same principles of the sustainable use of marine resources both within and outside EU waters. Of course, it also means making sure that we have a reformed CFP that does all it can to eradicate discards. I welcome the fact that the EU Fisheries Commissioner sees this issue as a top priority, as I think she does. I make that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). At the meeting I attended on 1 March, the commissioner said that her predecessor had had a similar meeting five years previously at which everyone around the table had said how outraged they were with the process and nothing happened. I am not prepared to allow my successor to be here saying that something needs to be done in five years’ time. Something does need to be done and I am committed to working with the Commission and other member states to achieve discard-free fisheries.
	Let me make a few things clear. The outrage that people feel about discards is shared by the Government and Members on both sides of the House. Our actions are not prompted by the Fish Fight campaign, but they are enhanced by it and we welcome it wholeheartedly. We are tackling this issue through the reform of the
	CFP, but we are not waiting for that reform. As has been said, important progress has been made with catch quotas, and the trials that were instigated by the previous Government have been extended by us. The hostility of fishermen to having cameras on their boats has been largely negated and they are now queuing up to get into these schemes. Hostility from other member states for that method of fishing management has largely disappeared and we have signed a declaration with the Governments of France, Germany and Denmark to see that that is introduced. Project 50% has also brought huge benefits in reducing discards.
	I want to see a high-level objective of working towards discard-free fisheries in the new CFP with member states accountable and responsible for working to achieve that, managing what is caught rather than what is landed. There is a lot of focus on imposing a ban on fishermen discarding at sea. I can support a ban and I will be pushing for one—it is semantics whether we talk about an end to discards or a ban—but only if it is backed by genuinely effective, enforceable and affordable measures that encourage fishermen to be more selective about what they catch. That is crucial, and that point has been made by many hon. Members today. The last thing we want is to transfer a waste problem at sea so that it becomes a waste issue on land. How horrendous it would be to bury fish because there was no market for them, or simply to ban the symptom of the problem, rather than the cause, criminalising fishermen in the process. We must remember that a ban would be wrong for some species that can be returned to the sea alive. I pay tribute to the Members who tabled the motion for being willing to change it, and I make the point that sharks, skate and rays, many of which are critically endangered in EU waters, can often survive after being caught, as can many species of shellfish.
	As well as providing fishermen with mechanisms to reduce discards we are tackling the problem in the UK through our Fishing for the Markets project, and several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), spoke about the 54% of discards for which there is no market. The project seeks to find markets, which is extremely important.
	In the few minutes remaining, I shall turn to some of the points that have been made this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park made a very good speech in introducing the debate, and he mentioned the importance of a regionalised approach, which is absolutely key. In discussing ecosystems, we are talking about a sea basin approach—in some cases it is more local—in which we can manage fish. People talk about an abundance of fish at certain times of the year, but they may not be abundant if there is not co-ordinated action, which is why an ecosystem-based approach is important.
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) made a familiar speech, and the points that he made were eloquently countered by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and by my hon. Friends. I pay particular tribute, as I did this morning, to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who made a courageous and powerful speech. I give her this absolute, determined pledge. I want the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to be a beacon of how to do marine conservation. I want people around the world to come and see how we do things in this
	country. I am grateful for the commitment that fishers, all users of the marine environment and everyone who cares about it have shown in operating through that bottom-up approach.
	I am not saying that everyone is going to be happy, but I will work night and day to make sure that what we achieve recognises the importance of socio-economic activities—there could be unintended consequences if we do not do so—and the fact that if fishing is displaced to other areas it could be damaging. I am therefore determined to make this work. I want to make absolutely certain that we do not lose our derogation, and my understanding from the Commission is that that will not happen.
	I place huge weight on our under-10 metre consultation. I am passionate about the fact that the inshore fleet does a great deal for coastal communities and social life in coastal Britain, and I want it to have a sustainable future. Sustainability is as important for fish stocks as it is for jobs onshore, and I will work hard to make sure that our proposals are workable.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who made a thoughtful contribution. I shall grasp his thread of optimism, as I like what he said about multi-annual plans. I want to be the last Minister who has to go through that ridiculous charade every December in which we sit through the night negotiating. I am delighted that we achieved a relatively good result last December and that the Government, working with the devolved Governments, argued on the basis of sustainability on every occasion. However, it is an absurd system. Multi-annual plans take power away from politicians, which is why some countries do not want to lose the present system—they like the patronage it gives them. I want to work on multi-annual plans and end the horse trading that we have to go through.
	I am conscious of time, so I shall pay tribute to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), whom I refer to the WWF/Industry Alliance, which builds on the Fish Fight campaign by taking the fight to my fellow Ministers in Europe, knocking on their door and saying that it wants change.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) also made a good speech. I refer him to the work of the Princes international sustainability fund, which currently values the north Atlantic tuna fishery at $70 million. If it was fished sustainably, it would be valued at $310 million, a massive increase. It is only by understanding that kind of difference in valuing our fish, rather than valuing them dead as we do at the moment, and valuing the potential social and economic impact that we will bring about that huge benefit. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for mentioning the Trevose box. He is right to point out that fishermen do so much to address sustainability themselves.
	I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park a few minutes to respond to the debate and so will conclude my remarks. The Government share the priorities expressed by the motion. I can reassure the House that those will remain at the heart of our thinking as we press strongly for a reformed CFP and continue to address discarding in the UK fleet. I am fully behind the intentions of the motion, although I am not sure that it reflects the full scope of the
	Government’s ambitions for CFP reform. We have an intensive diplomatic effort ahead to negotiate the reform we need, and we must get the detailed measures right, including those on discards. We can do that only by working with our fishing industry to develop effective measures. I welcome the tabling of the motion and the spotlight that the Fish Fight campaign has shone on the current CFP’s failings at a time when we have a once-in-a-decade opportunity to overcome them.

Zac Goldsmith: I start by again thanking the Backbench Business Committee for making this debate possible. We have heard some superb contributions from Members across the House, and every speech added something unique, which was very important. I also want to thank the shadow Minister and the Minister for their supportive comments and for staying throughout the entire debate, taking notes furiously and responding to the various points that were made. That is not always the case in such debates, so I appreciate it.
	I wish to offer particular thanks to the Fish Fight campaign, which was mentioned again and again throughout the debate. There is a direct link between its campaign outside Parliament and this motion in Parliament. It is a perfect example of hundreds of thousands of people mobilising their representatives in Parliament and moving an issue that not many people find interesting to the top of the political agenda, for now at least. I pay tribute to those campaigners, who have done a superb job. The debate probably would not be happening, and certainly not with such a motion, without their involvement.
	The motion is ambitious. I will not repeat all the arguments used at the beginning of the debate because I will run out of time, and kill the motion myself in doing so. If it is passed with the support of the House, which I think it will be, we will see an absolute commitment to ending discards and a new regulatory regime that recognises the difference between small, traditional fishermen and their industrial competitors. Crucially, we will see the beginning of a process in which we will regain control over those crucial 12 sovereign miles. In my view, nothing is possible without that. It is a central part of the motion. I once again thank the House and the Backbench Business Committee.

Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) wish to move her amendments? No? We shall therefore decide on the motion before the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Fish Fight campaign; and calls on the Government to vote against proposed reforms of the EU Common Fisheries Policy unless they implement an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management, end discards in relation to all fish and shellfish with derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding, require that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels by 2015, ensure the involvement of fishers and other stakeholders in decision-making processes and enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters, taking into particular account vessel size and environmental impact.

BUSINESS SUPPORT (LANCASTER AND FLEETWOOD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

Eric Ollerenshaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about my constituency. It is always a pleasure and an opportunity to give Ministers more information about the needs of the area, as I am sure it is a pleasure for them to hear it. I want to focus on the experiences and needs of businesses there, and say a little about the economic development that is also needed.
	By way of background, Fleetwood is an old fishing port that is celebrating its 175th anniversary this year; I am almost repeating what I said in the previous debate. The fishing fleet has seriously declined over the past few decades, to the point that, although a few dozen fishing boats are registered at Fleetwood, only three boats actually now fish from the site. Until recently, Stena Lines ran a ferry route from Fleetwood to Larne in Northern Ireland; it withdrew the route back in December.
	Fish processing is the main industry, and the internationally famous Fisherman’s Friend is also a large employer. Transport links are poor, however. According to the Association of Train Operators, Fleetwood is part of one of the largest urban areas in the country without a direct rail link, something that I raised—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—( Mr  Newmark .)

Eric Ollerenshaw: I raised the issue of a direct rail link in a Westminster Hall debate a couple of weeks ago, and the only other transport link is a single-lane road, the A585, from the motorway. The overriding story, as everyone in Fleetwood will say, is that the town has suffered significantly in recent years, largely as the use of the port has declined.
	Lancaster, at the other extreme of the constituency, is also an old port city, and it has a great heritage. Its medieval castle includes the only example left in England of anything that was built by John of Gaunt, and its tourist potential is strong. Lancaster university is ranked in the top 10 by The Times, it has a large campus and its research is driving many business developments in the area. What Lancaster lacks is a large modern department store, meaning that its retail business pales in comparison with places such as Preston, which is increasingly taking business away. I hope that a proposed development, known as Centros, will resolve that in the next few years, so long as English Heritage can overcome some points of detail which have held up the project.
	We also have a large rural area, with small hill farms and various other businesses established around the city boundaries, but again there is a problem with a lack of rural broadband, particularly in the hills surrounding Lancaster, so the question is: how do we help business and the private sector in Lancaster and Fleetwood to grow?
	Much of what is needed is the same as what businesses need all over the country, and I will start with the generic, throw in some local examples and then move on to some more constituency concerns. The outcome of Project Merlin, to get the banks to lend more—an extra £11 billion this year compared with 2010—is obviously welcome, but perhaps one of the biggest complaints that I still receive, from small businesses especially, is that they continue to struggle to secure finance from the banks, whether new capital or just an overdraft extension. In many cases there is simply a lack of good customer service, with bank managers and decision makers not being available.
	For example, Mr lain Bailey, a small businessman based in Lancaster, says that he still struggles to engage productively with his bank when he needs to; that
	“many businesses feel banks have left us all adrift”;
	and that it is simply
	“up to the businesses themselves to sort things out!”
	My local chamber of commerce, Lancaster chamber of commerce, in its most recent members survey on finance and banking, received a number of disconcerting comments. Here are just a few examples from individual businesses in Lancaster. One said:
	“Our bank is very unhelpful at the moment and have no leeway and appear to be too inflexible.”
	Another business person said:
	“I was refused a formal overdraft increase but allowed excess at punitive cost.”
	A further business noted:
	“Even though we had a business account with our bank for over 25 years they refused to even give us an answer when we applied for a loan.”
	And finally, one more business explained:
	“I asked to increase my overdraft to help ease cash flow but our bank forced us to reduce it by £10,000 instead!"
	It is clear that in some cases the banks are still not living up to their end of the bargain, so perhaps the Minister will let me know where we are on bank lending, and whether there is any mechanism that will allow businesses, or perhaps MPs acting on their behalf, to report ongoing problems for his Department to follow up.
	I welcome the end of the Northwest Regional Development Agency, and the new local enterprise partnership structure should lead to more targeted, specific and relevant assistance for places such as Lancaster and Fleetwood. One problem with the Northwest Regional Development Agency involved the fact that, for many of us in the region, the view rapidly developed that the north-west began and ended in Manchester and on Merseyside. Sadly, I will have to return to that theme later, but if I do nothing else today I hope to make it clear to the Minister that that is definitely not the case.
	I also think that the new local enterprise partnership—LEP—structures can lead to more direct input from local businesses, and that can only be good for ensuring that schemes are of real practical value. In Lancashire we have taken slightly longer than some other places to get our LEP agreed, but I thank the Minister’s Department for its help in finally enabling us to bring the various parts of Lancashire together. I put on record my personal thanks to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for his efforts in trying to ensure that Lancashire finally got a Lancashire-wide LEP.
	However, in the interim period local businesses are very uncertain about how the new regime will work. The Lancaster chamber of commerce—and it is not alone—says that it needs more clarification on what support there will be, who will deliver it, and how to access it. Once Business Link regional services close, people wonder what vehicle will be used to keep businesses informed of what support is available. They need to know more about the mechanisms that will be available to support and encourage new businesses, to assist potential high-growth businesses and to encourage business development in areas of deprivation, and about how the interrelations between the various councils, regenerations and Government bodies is to develop. There is still work to be done, especially as our LEP has only just started to be set up. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is as much communication as possible with local businesses, and particularly local chambers of commerce, over the next few months so that the various communities can begin to plan properly for the future.
	According to the Library, 42.2% of the population of Lancaster and Fleetwood is employed in the public sector—the 37th highest proportion in the UK. As cuts are made to public spending, the Government’s agenda for growth in the private sector will be disproportionately important in constituencies such as mine, and I want to ensure that we get our fair share of resources and that all that can be done to encourage private sector growth in my area is done.
	The regional growth fund is a big opportunity for businesses, an opportunity for individual companies, and a help in regenerating the whole area. In the north-west we have welcomed the Government’s recognition of the distinction between the south-east and the east and the rest of the country, and the fact that the regional growth fund’s priority is our kind of area. The first round of successful regional growth fund bids lists an impressive number of jobs that the supported first round schemes will help to create or maintain in the wider north-west.
	However, my concern about the first round process is that a lot of the criteria are determined by European subsidy rules, which in effect means that support for large companies can be offered only to particularly low-employment or deprived parts of the country. Assisted areas in the north-west include Liverpool, St Helens and parts of Manchester. The other parts of the north-west are missing. For example, a major manufacturer based in Lancaster that employs 150 people wanted to expand, and was looking into the possibility of bidding for regional growth fund money to do so. It was determined that it could provide 50% more jobs through its expansion. However, its turnover was above the threshold for assistance outside the special assisted areas, and it was effectively hamstrung in terms of accessing regional growth fund money. I remind the Minister that this is about the possibility of new jobs.
	Those rules have thus resulted in most of the resources of the first round regional growth fund bids going to big city areas such as Manchester and Liverpool—precisely the situation that I had hoped the break up of the RDAs was going to help to avoid. We accept that this will help my constituents, many of whom either already commute to Manchester each day or would be prepared to do so. However, I hope that phase 2 of the bidding process will include more support for north-west companies
	outside Manchester and Liverpool—companies that can show that they can provide the extra jobs and growth that I understood were this Government’s priority.
	Perhaps that would be more likely to happen if more bids were accepted from small and medium-sized enterprises, but the return on investment required for a successful regional growth fund bid has in some ways limited applications from that sector. SMEs often do not have the resources to compile the data required for entering into the bidding process—at least not on their own—and so we come back to support for businesses in terms of information and guidance to help them through the bidding process.
	That brings me on to the related subject of enterprise zones. I broadly welcome the Government’s creation of enterprise zones. They have the potential to bring much-needed investment into areas that need jobs and regeneration. They also have a key role to play in closing the north-south divide and rebalancing the economy, which is a major aim of the Government. Of the 11 zones that have been announced, the two in the north-west are in—you’ve guessed it—Manchester and Liverpool. Although I welcome those zones because they will drag business northwards and create hubs of industry that neighbouring areas can feed off, I am concerned that, yet again, it is the big cities of the north-west that will get the immediate benefit. I hope that more original locations will emerge when the remaining 10 enterprise zones are allocated, possibly helping areas further north than Manchester. An enterprise zone on the Fylde coast, for example, would be welcome, because it would help to provide jobs not only for my constituents in Fleetwood, but in the wider areas of Blackpool and Fylde, as well as providing new business orders for local businesses.
	Transport infrastructure is also necessary for businesses to thrive. The coalition has done well in that area so far. After years of underinvestment in our transport network under Labour, in just one year there has been a lot of good news for the north-west, and for my constituents in particular. The renewal of the west coast franchise offers extra capacity for the overcrowded rail services on that route. In the longer term, High Speed 2 offers more capacity, speed and choice for journeys to London and, ultimately, Scotland. It might also open a direct link to Heathrow and the channel tunnel.

Iain Stewart: As usual, my hon. Friend is making a passionate case for his business community. He makes an important point about high-speed rail. Is he aware that evidence from other countries shows that the success of a high-speed line often depends on the degree of connectivity to the termini of those lines from areas such as his? We should do all we can to encourage businesses to make their voices heard in the current high-speed rail consultation.

Eric Ollerenshaw: My hon. Friend makes a significant point. High Speed 2 is critical to the north-west and to Yorkshire. We should talk about it as a line that will go from London to Manchester and from London to Leeds, and eventually from London to Glasgow and from London to Edinburgh. As hon. Members may know, I have said in other places that I do not see why we do not start building south from Glasgow and
	Edinburgh now, while the areas around London argue about where their terminus will be. The point is clear: High Speed 2 is vital in the long term for business in my area, and in my constituency in particular.
	The other helpful development is the proposed northern hub, which will allow faster and more frequent services between the cities of the north and bring an estimated £4 billion of benefits to the region. That will be good for business and for job creation. In particular, the electrification of the line from Preston to Blackpool will be a major help to the growth of business in my area.
	I am also pleased that the Department for Transport has finally agreed that the M6 to Heysham link road should go ahead. It has been on the drawing board for 50-odd years. When it is finally built, it should lead to better communication to the port of Heysham, which will help businesses and attract new businesses on both the Morecambe and Lancaster sides of the River Lune, and along the M6 corridor.

David Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new link road will create pockets of investment in my constituency and in his constituency next door?

Eric Ollerenshaw: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his support in working with the chamber of commerce, the county council and Ministers to help them see the importance of that scheme, which promises much for business.
	The transport links to Fleetwood remain poor. I have raised with Ministers the fact that although there is about four and a half or five miles of railway line in Fleetwood, unfortunately there are no trains on it. There is a plan, with the support of the council, to get that development, which needs capital of about £6 million. I will come back to those figures in a minute.
	My last general point is that I fully support the plans to reduce the amount of red tape that businesses have to fight through. We need economic growth, and it is only right that we should make it as easy as possible for businesses and entrepreneurs to start up companies and create the jobs that are so badly needed. That is the greatest area in which businesses have asked me for support and talked about their hopes from the coalition.
	The Government’s war on red tape—the red tape challenge, I think it has been branded—is welcomed by all businesses. I know that many previous Governments have talked the talk, but I hope this Administration will finally walk the walk. I am particularly hopeful of that because I know that the Minister has that type of background and has personal experience. I am sure that he will put his full weight behind the deregulation drive.
	Those are the general issues, but I also wish to mention one or two specific local examples to demonstrate the problems. The first is that of a company called Nitratec, which is based in Fleetwood and supplies trucks and trailers both new and used for the UK and export markets. It asked me to visit last year. It was having a particular problem in getting help to access export markets, particularly in some less usual export destinations. For instance, it was keen to grow into Africa and Kurdistan. As it happened, I was able to put it on to the British embassy in Iraq via a couple of contacts, and I understand that that side of things is
	now going well. The lesson is that perhaps we could still be doing more to help companies understand where they can go to get assistance if they want to export goods or services. In that instance, it was just a fluke that I had contacts in the particular area where the company wanted to develop, but why should a business that has such potential have to rely on the chance nature of its MP’s contacts?
	Increasing exports is, of course, a major policy plank for the UK. I note that only yesterday, the Foreign Secretary told the House that if we could increase the number of small and medium-sized enterprise exporters in this country from one in five to the EU average of one in four, the extra exports from Britain would more than cancel out the trade deficits that we have experienced in recent years. I hope that more can be done to help companies get on the right track.
	I shall give another example. Paul Banks is a constituent of mine who has a start-up business in Lancaster called Image Alchemy. It is highly innovative, as I saw when I visited him a couple of months ago. His potential for further growth is extremely high, and Lancaster university’s environment centre has recently “adopted” him, marking his business out as worthy of support. His new prototype system was an immediate hit at a recent German trade fair and a fair at the national exhibition centre in Birmingham, and order inquiries came pouring in. To get the system to production he needs to get finance, which could mean the immediate creation of five new jobs in the community.
	Mr Banks has funded the new product with his own money, but he has struggled to access local and EU funding designed to help expand small start-ups such as his. The bureaucracy that he has encountered in seeking a small five-figure sum has bogged him down with repetitive form-filling, but the rewards if his expansion can be aided are potentially huge. The key point that I wish to underline is the small sum needed to get the company launched. We need to make it easier for such businesses to find funding, especially when the sums needed are so small.
	Another example is a scheme called the fish park in Fleetwood. One of the plans for the regeneration of Fleetwood was to develop a sea and shellfish processing park, providing a new unit for the already resident company AM Seafoods and various other units for some 20 SMEs. The industry is already worth some £135 million and 660 jobs to the local economy, but the enhancement and modern premises could mean the addition of 150 new jobs in a town that needs private sector growth.
	A partnership between Wyre borough council, Lancashire county council and AM Seafoods is in place, and the plan is to split the costs 50:50 between the private and public sector. The public sector amount required is £6 million. The point that I am trying to make is that the sums needed in areas outside the major areas of deprivation are quite small, but the resulting employment would be quite large. In my postbag and my surgeries, virtually every fortnight I hear of a new business, whether small or large—although the businesses in my area are not huge—that has the same problem. Through innovation or expanding on existing orders, they could provide the extra jobs that the economy needs, but at the moment there seems no way for them to get assistance with that growth, and certainly not from the banks.
	I need to give the Minister time to reply. I should like him to reconsider regional stock exchanges, and I should like him to consider enterprise zones being part and parcel of every university campus, to enable universities to develop innovation. Most of all, I look for some assistance from the Government, or for them to put pressure on banks to provide that much-needed assistance, so that we get the growth we need.

John Hayes: I am extremely grateful for the chance to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing it. My last dealings with Fleetwood directly were around a decade ago, when, as shadow fisheries Minister, I visited that splendid town and stayed at the North Euston hotel, which is, of course, part of the Mount, which is perhaps the jewel in the crown—if I might put it that way—of Fleetwood.
	How appropriate that we should today have this Adjournment debate following a debate on fishing, which forms such an important part of Fleetwood’s history. As I recall from my time as shadow fisheries Minister and from information I have gained somewhat later, 1,000 people are still employed in that industry, mostly in fish processing. As my hon. Friend said in his excellent speech, many more people are, I suspect, employed producing Fishermen’s Friends, which I understand are particularly popular in Japan.
	John Ruskin said that the first test of a truly great man is his humility. I do not aspire to be a truly great man, but I do aspire to humility, and I should say at the outset that I could never know as much as my hon. Friend about his constituency, nor speak with the passion about it that he has demonstrated today. He comes to the House with a long and proud history in local government, and already, he has brought an energy, enthusiasm, commitment and, if I may say, an expertise to his dealings in this place as the representative of his splendid constituency.
	I shall try to respond to as many of the points that my hon. Friend raised as I can, although he will appreciate that time is short. He knows how deeply the Government are committed to encouraging renewed economic growth and the new jobs and businesses that will spring from that, and I draw his attention to the work done leading up to today and the announcement on youth employment made this afternoon by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, with which I was pleased to be involved. They announced new policies for encouraging more apprenticeships, which is a subject dear to my heart, and for work placements and experience as a means of moving people from economic disengagement to engagement.
	That will resonate in Fleetwood, as my hon. Friend suggests, but ensuring that we take advantage of the capital that lies, sometimes unused, among those who are currently disengaged, is a challenge for the whole country. The investment infrastructure to which he drew attention also means investing in human infrastructure. That is a central pillar of the Government’s macro-economic plans. It would be impossible to recalibrate the economy to make it more sustainable if we did not make that kind of investment, as he properly said.
	Just as the Government have been honest with the British people about the scale of the deficit and its implications, we must now accept that the struggle for growth will not be without its setbacks. For example, I was particularly saddened to hear from my hon. Friend of Stena Line’s recent decision to close its service between Fleetwood and Larne, although I understand that the service operated at a loss for some time.
	Having said that, just as we accept bad news, we should celebrate good news—better tidings, if I can put it that way. Only the other day, I was heartened to read in the Blackpool Gazette, which is always on my bedside table, as one might imagine, that my hon. Friend had formally opened the delightfully named Strawberry Gardens pub in Fleetwood. I gather that that is the first pub to be opened by the new and even more inventively titled Fuzzy Duck brewery, which has been set up in his constituency. I can assure him of my best wishes for their success.
	The creation of a small business such as that one illustrates a fundamentally important point, as my hon. Friend said, for small businesses are the bedrock of our economy. Businesses in Lancaster and Fleetwood are primarily small and medium-sized enterprises, and the issues they face are typical of those experienced by companies across the country over the past few years. SMEs account for more than 99% of private businesses, and about half of all jobs. I do not need to tell you that, Mr Deputy Speaker, given your background and your commitment to that sector based on personal and family experience.
	As my hon. Friend suggested, I, too, have a background in business, having been a businessman in the IT industry before coming to this place. I fully appreciate his points about regulation and tax, and in particular about the need to invest in small businesses—and, for that reason, the importance of banks getting behind those businesses, to allow them to form and to grow.
	What, he might ask, are we doing to help with all that? Well, we will enable better access to both debt and equity finance. We will ensure that we have a predictable tax system that rewards endeavour. We will also reduce red tape and ensure that the support that we provide SMEs is delivered in the most effective and efficient way possible. I hope to return to one or two of those points in more detail, but I want to emphasise access to finance in particular, as that was a central part of my hon. Friend’s speech. As he said, the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth; and indeed, that is the core priority for this Government. We recognise the problems faced by small firms that do not have adequate security to obtain finance. That is why we have decided to continue the enterprise finance guarantee until 2015, to unlock up to £2 billion of additional lending to SMEs. The latest figures show that 18 businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency have so far been offered and have drawn down EFG-backed loans worth over £2 million.
	The EFG scheme is of course intended to complement rather than replace mainstream bank lending. This
	Government have made considerable efforts to get the banks to meet the demand for credit from viable SMEs. Under the Project Merlin agreement, the banks have committed to make available £190 billion of new credit in 2011, of which £76 billion will be for SMEs—a 15% increase on the £66 billion lent in 2010. Clearly Banks still need to make commercial decisions, and it is not for the Government to intervene in these. In view of that, I would encourage any businesses having difficulties with their bank to continue to engage with the bank to try to resolve the issue.
	My hon. Friend also made the important point that we need an independent review of such matters when things do not go right; and indeed, an independent reviewer has been appointed to monitor the banks’ appeal processes. He will publish an annual report on the effectiveness of those processes. The appeal process that we have set up is sensitive to the very sound points that my hon. Friend made. He can feel absolutely assured that this Minister, in this Department, along with my hon. Friends, will ensure that small businesses get the backing that they need and deserve.
	My hon. Friend also talked about business mentors and advice. It is critical that we establish a network of experienced business mentors offering practical advice to existing businesses and people who want to start a business. We are setting up a new business coaching for growth programme to enable new small businesses with high growth potential to realise that potential. We are also refocusing the Solutions for Business range of products, so that they are better focused on helping firms grow.
	We are also establishing local enterprise partnerships. We expect the new LEPs to be able to provide help to small firms, both with advice and by bringing together useful partnerships that will allow the sharing of good practice across the private and public sectors. That increased coherence will help my hon. Friend’s constituency, as it will others, in the ways that he requested. As set out in the White Paper, local enterprise partnerships will play diverse roles, reflecting the differing local priorities in different areas. These will include ensuring that both planning and infrastructure investment support business needs, and working with Government to support enterprise, innovation, global trade and inward investment. He will also know that we announced 11 enterprise zones in the Budget. They will be hosted by LEPs and will bring together a wide range of tools and incentives in an unashamedly pro-growth way, giving power back to local communities and businesses.
	My hon. Friend has done a service to this House in highlighting the important issues facing his constituency. They reflect those facing constituencies up and down this country. He can be assured that this is a Government who are pro-business, pro-enterprise, pro-growth, pro his constituency and pro-him.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.